Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the promoters of the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
That in the present Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the promoters of the Medway Council Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
That in the present Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Modernisation Fund

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on allocations under the modernisation fund. [142896]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In the last two years, £4 billion worth of extra investment for the national health service has been provided through the modernisation fund. It has been used to expand critical care, cancer and heart services. Among other purposes, it has been used to cut waiting times for treatment and to increase the number of nurses in training.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On how many occasions have the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues overridden the advice of civil servants on the allocation of money to bids for the fund?

Mr. Milburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman has confused the modernisation fund and the special assistance fund—perhaps he is starting the year as he means to go on. He appears to be alluding to the special assistance fund in calling for extra money for his health authority. It is true that we received advice suggesting that we put more money into West Surrey health authority than we initially put in under the special assistance fund, but we have agreed with official advice on how much money we should put into general allocations for that health authority. This year, £30 million extra will go to West Surrey as a consequence of the investment that we are making, and next year there will be extra investment of £31 million.

Dr. Jack Cunningham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's determination to modernise the national health service, especially in west Cumbria and my constituency. I also welcome the substantial increase in the budget of North Cumbria health authority. However, does he recognise that money is not the sole issue? Will he examine specifically and urgently the collapse of breast services at the West Cumberland hospital in Copeland? There is widespread concern, not because the resources to sustain the service are not available but because it is proving very difficult to recruit radiologists of sufficient standing to fill the posts. When he considers the problem, will he also ensure that the solution is designed for the convenience and better health care of the women who need such services, and not for the convenience of administrators and consultants?

Mr. Milburn: I shall gladly consider the concerns that my right hon. Friend has raised. He has already raised them informally with me and I shall be glad to examine the specific problem. It is true that we have a problem with the recruitment of radiologists and surgeons for oncology services. That is the position throughout the country and, in large part, it reflects the problems that the


NHS faces today, which are no longer problems of cash, but problems of capacity. There is a shortage of trained and skilled nurses and doctors. Over time, we will put that right. As a result of the record levels of investment that we are making, over the next four or five years, the six major specialties that deal with cancer services will see a 25 per cent. increase in numbers.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I am glad that the Secretary of State has come clean about his intervention to reduce the amount of money recommended by his officials for West Surrey health authority under transitional funding arrangements, but does he not understand that if he fails to answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) about how, when and why he departs from official recommendations when making allocations under the modernisation fund, he will not dispel the suspicion that it is being used as a multibillion-pound slush fund, dispensed at his whim in an attempt to buy friends and influence in the run-up to the general election?

Mr. Milburn: I honestly do not know to what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) are alluding. Let me give them some examples of the use to which we have put the modernisation fund, then let the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) substantiate his allegation.
In 1999–2000, to get waiting times down, we put an extra £260 million into the local health service through the modernisation fund; we also put extra money into cancer and coronary heart disease services. I think that, in the last financial year and the current one, we have put an extra £150 million into critical care services. The hon. Gentleman always bleats about lack of investment in such services, but I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that critical care, heart disease and cancer services, and efforts to cut waiting and modernise accident and emergency services are precisely the priorities of the national health service and the modernisation fund.

Primary Care

Helen Jackson: What progress has been made in involving patients in primary care groups. [142897]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Excellent progress in involving patients has been made by primary care groups and primary care trusts. Those new organisations reflect and represent the interests of the community that they serve, partly through the lay membership, but largely by working together to engage and involve local people.

Helen Jackson: Sheffield has a good community health council that has stimulated an excellent community health forum in my constituency, but there is concern that, in the new system, the patients and public who participate in it will not have the same opportunities to get their voices heard. During the transition from community health councils to the new patients forums, how will my hon.

Friend ensure that there will be no break in continuity when good initiatives, such as the one that I have mentioned, are in place?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The establishment of primary care groups has, so far as we can tell, led to an explosion in the number of patients forums throughout the country. Some are supported by CHCs and others are directly supported by the primary care group. The primary care group in my hon. Friend's constituency is one of several that want to become primary care trusts from April this year, and will therefore benefit from the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill for every trust to have a statutory independent patients forum, which will not be appointed by Ministers, to represent patients' interests.
During the transition to the new arrangement, it will be important to ensure that valuable local forums are properly supported, and we will look to the health authority to do that. I understand that the primary care group wants Stocksbridge community health forum to continue. It is at an early stage of planning next year's budget and has not been able to make firm commitments, but it recognises the forum's value.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Minister agree that the Government are introducing new mechanisms for public involvement in the national health service because of their policy unnecessarily to abolish community health councils? If the councils are unsuited to represent patients' needs, will he tell the House why the National Assembly for Wales will not be abolishing them?

Mr. Denham: Many CHCs have done a good job, but that has largely been owing to the qualities of the individuals involved as officers and lay members rather than to their legal structure and powers. We want a step change and improvement in patient influence in the NHS. That is why the Health and Social Care Bill will, for the first time, put a statutory duty on every NHS organisation to involve and consult patients. It will establish for every trust an independent patients forum with the power to oversee the advocacy and liaison service in each trust. We shall ensure that there is an effective complaints system for individual patients and an independent source of advice and support for patients who want to take their complaint through that system. We shall give democratic local government the role that it should have had of overseeing the local health service. All those measures give patients a greater say in the future of the NHS. The functions carried out by CHCs will be performed by other bodies and new functions added. That is a step forward.

Helen Jones: I am pleased to hear about that progress, but can my hon. Friend assure me that the new system will not replicate the problems of health authorities and trusts in which the poorest and most health-deprived areas are consistently under-represented in the forums, as they are in my area? Will he ensure that people with the greatest health needs get their proper say?

Mr. Denham: We hope to achieve that through a number of mechanisms. First, an independent appointments commission will appoint members of the patients forums, and we will look to those bodies to


ensure that they are properly representative of the communities that they serve. Secondly, we propose—I am sure that we shall discuss this in detail in Standing Committee—to find arrangements to draw on a representative cross-section of people who have recently used the NHS to be members of the patients forums. Both those methods will allow us to achieve the aim that my hon. Friend sets out.

Waiting Times (Avon)

Mr. Brian Cotter: If he will make a statement on the average out-patient waiting time for an ear, nose and throat consultation in the Avon health authority area in the last 12 months [142898]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The latest figures, for the quarter ending 30 September 2000, show that in Avon health authority the number of ENT out-patients being seen in less than 13 weeks increased from 54 per cent. to 57 per cent., compared with the previous year. On that date, the number of patients in Avon waiting more than 13 weeks was 7.8 per cent. lower than on the same day in 1999. Avon health authority, like others, will benefit from the action in the NHS plan to cut maximum waiting times for out-patients.

Mr. Cotter: We in Weston-super-Mare must be very unlucky. Is the Minister aware chat the mother of a five-year-old suffering from a recurrent ear infection has been told that the child must wait a year for an appointment? I am sure that she will agree that that is a long time for a child to suffer discomfort.

Yvette Cooper: I know that the Weston area health NHS trust has shown the greatest improvement in dealing with ENT long-waiters, with 63 per cent. having their out-patient appointment in less than 13 weeks, compared with 43 per cent. the previous year. However, I shall look into the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Ms Julia Drown: Has the NHS executive for the region covering Avon health authority been charged with ensuring that best practice is spread from one trust to another, so that those in Avon health authority can benefit from best practice elsewhere? My local trust, at Princess Margaret hospital, has reduced the number of people waiting 13 weeks for ENT appointments from 200 to 75 in only three months. We want such progress to be made throughout the country. No one should wait more than 26 weeks. Such best practice should be spread to Avon health authority and elsewhere.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to spread throughout the country the best practice used in many areas. That is what the action on ENT programme is all about. The pilot of the partial booking system in Basildon has already met the three-month wait target for out-patients set in the NHS plan, and we shall introduce that system throughout the country.

Dr. Liam Fox: As one who shares the Avon health authority area with the hon. Member for

Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), I can confirm that cases such as the one that he mentioned occur throughout the region. Does the Minister accept that the situation in Avon is mirrored throughout the country? Can she confirm that the waiting list for the waiting list, which is what the hon. Gentleman described, is now 55,000 higher than when the Government came to office; and that consultants throughout the country are now saying that the waiting list initiative itself means that they are spending a disproportionate amount of time in theatre dealing with minor cases, while the sickest patients often wait longer to see a consultant in out-patients? How many patients will have to suffer as a consequence of that policy before it is abandoned?

Yvette Cooper: I am proud that the Government have met our manifesto pledge to cut in-patient waiting lists by more than 100,000. It is absolutely right that we should cut waiting times in in-patients and out-patients, and that is exactly what is set out in the NHS plan. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why he said that patients should wait longer for certain treatments. Will he say which of his constituents in Avon he believes should wait longer as a result of his proposals?

Cannabis

Mr. Peter Bradley: What advice he has received about the medical properties of cannabis. [142899]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The Government have approved a number of clinical trials into the medicinal use of cannabis. Once the results of the trials have been properly evaluated, we will have an evidence base that will allow us to decide how to proceed.

Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but it will come as little relief to the thousands of people throughout the country who suffer the torment of multiple sclerosis. They include a courageous but desperate constituent of mine: courageous because she has allowed me to use her name—indeed, she has encouraged me to do so—and desperate because she suffers the pain of MS. Until relatively recently, she was an undercover drugs squad officer with West Midlands police; it was her job to pursue and lock up people who peddle drugs. Now, she is out on the streets trying to secure her only relief from the pain that she suffers. Will my hon. Friend assure me that she and her colleagues will try to persuade the Home Office and the police service that such people are victims, not criminals? They are victims of the torment of MS, and they should not be made victims of injustice.

Ms Stuart: I sympathise with any patient who is suffering and feels that an effective medicine is not available. However, as with any chronic illness, it is important to evaluate the benefits and risks of treatment. It is therefore extremely important that the research that we are undertaking is properly supervised. It involves 660 MS sufferers and there will be a report in 2003. We shall make a decision based on that clinical evidence.
It is important to put it on the record that the possession of cannabis is against the law for good scientific reasons in terms of acute and chronic health effects. However,


at each stage of the criminal justice system, there is discretion to allow for public interest considerations to be weighed in the balance. It is right that each case should be considered on its merit; to do otherwise would raise issues of constitutional propriety. The important point is that cannabis and any medicine that is used must be properly tested and assessed. Only when it is seen to be safe and effective will it be used in the NHS.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there has for a long time been evidence of the benefit of cannabis to MS sufferers? Is it not time that the Government made more rapid progress to relieve those people of worries about potential law-breaking, or that they might be unable to get the cannabis that they need for their treatment? Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking that, if necessary, legislation will be introduced when she has enough evidence to make that decision?

Ms Stuart: That is precisely what we are doing. That is why the trials were set up in 1999 and why £950,000 has been put into them. They will be properly conducted and the results properly assessed. When those involved report back with their evidence, we shall take appropriate action. However, that action will be based on reliable scientific evidence and not on anecdotal evidence, which is what we have had so far.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Cannabis has been trialled and tested for 5,000 years in every continent by millions of people, and it has not had any serious side effect throughout that period. One hundred Members of Parliament, the majority of the British Medical Association and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology all agree that natural cannabis should now be used medicinally. Is it not ironic that Clare Hodges, who has gone to the Belgium Parliament and convinced it to change its law in the past three months to allow medicinal cannabis to be prescribed, has to go on the streets of this country to get her own cannabis? She is an MS sufferer. Another MS sufferer was dragged through the courts six months ago. The policy is stupid and cruel.

Ms Stuart: We need to draw a clear distinction between a drug that is illegal—that is, cannabis—and a medicine that is used within the NHS. The medicine will be used only when it has been properly trialled and tested under clinical conditions. That is what is happening in respect of the medicinal use of cannabis, and it is the right and proper way to proceed.

Over-prescribing (Alzheimer's Disease)

Rev. Martin Smyth: What assessment he has made of injurious impact of over-prescribing of drugs for patients with Alzheimer's disease. [142900]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): All prescribing for older people, including those with Alzheimer's disease, should be undertaken and monitored carefully by the doctor responsible. The Department published advice in 1998 on prescribing in residential and nursing homes, which covered the use of neuroleptic drugs. The national service

framework for older people will also contribute to improving the care of older people with dementia by setting new national standards for health and social care services.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that response and the standard that has been set. I also welcome the improved care for those with Alzheimer's disease and look forward to more discoveries that will help them and cure them. Having said that, does the Minister share my concern that, although some of us thought that the liquid cosh was a thing of the past, there seem to be more reports of people being drugged so that they are subdued and do not cause trouble to their carers?

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. There is little doubt that dealing with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia is one of the greatest health and social care challenges that our society faces. Currently, 600,000 people suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and it is estimated that the number will increase substantially in the years ahead as the number of people in our society aged over 80 increases significantly.
I am aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members have expressed about the use of neuroleptic drugs in care homes. Almost two years ago, Age Concern produced some helpful advice, which included the recommendation that there should be regular reviews of the prescription of neuroleptic drugs. The hon. Gentleman and I share a common interest. We shall make sure that the use of such drugs is kept under proper review.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that some doctors in this country—I have in mind a constituency case—are urging dementia patients to take drugs that are banned in America by the Food and Drug Administration? We need a lot more information. Anybody who suffers from or has an elderly relative who suffers from one of the 200 dementing illnesses faces huge personal and social pressure, and it is wrong for doctors casually to say, "This drug will do the trick for you", when it may be banned in other countries. We are working through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to achieve an even balance throughout the country, but we need more publicity, openness and information. I hope that his Department can help to provide that.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Of course, he is absolutely right. NICE is reviewing a range of available drug treatments for those who have been afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, and I understand that the final appraisal advice will be available shortly.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: With respect to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), Alzheimer's sufferers would say that the problem is under-prescribing of the drugs that they need. In the west midlands, Aricept is not available on the NHS unless the patient is prepared to take part in a trial, which is unnecessary and merely aggravates the problem of


postcode prescribing to which the Government have failed to deliver a solution. The Secretary of State said:
It is important … that we achieve our aim, which is to ensure the introduction of more effective treatments into the national health service more quickly than has been possible before.—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 136.]
What went wrong?

Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that that confirms that the modern Conservative party is the stupid party of British politics. The hon. Lady complains about the postcode lottery of care, but she might remind the House of the solution proposed by her party and the Conservative Government: they created the lottery of care and their NHS reforms made it impossible to deal with those problems. She is aware, as I hope the whole House is, that NICE is reviewing the evidence surrounding the use of such drugs and will shortly publish its final advice.

Primary Care

Mr. Paul Goggins: What action he is taking to improve access to primary health care. [142901]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The NHS plan sets ambitious targets to improve waiting times in primary care and expand the range of services available locally to patients. In June last year, we made £54.5 million available to kick-start a four-year programme to improve access to family doctors, nurses and other professionals and to extend the range of treatments and services that could be provided in the community.

Mr. Goggins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve access to primary health care is to make better use of existing skills and resources? I draw his attention to a new initiative by the South Manchester primary care trust, which is about to introduce a new primary care triage service in which practice nurses give telephone advice to patients who ring up to request a same-day appointment with their GP. The service will not remove their right to see their GP, but it will mean that they receive professional advice immediately.

Mr. Milburn: I am aware of some of the South Manchester PCT's work following my visit, which my hon. Friend will recall. The PCT has been involved in the walk-in centre at Manchester airport and some sure start initiatives. It is doing good work, which goes to show, first, that, provided investment is made, an expansion in primary care services can be achieved—we can do a lot more in the community and in primary care than we have done hitherto. Secondly, the investment agenda has to run alongside fundamental reforms of the way in which primary care services and health care services as a whole are delivered. In some parts of the country, the first fruits of investment in modernisation are coming through to benefit patients. I very much hope that that is the case in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Manchester as a whole.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Secretary of State accept—I have written to him on the subject— that the availability of complementary and alternative

medicine through primary care groups has been reduced since the switch from GP fundholding? Now that the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on complementary medicine has been published and an early-day motion broadly supporting it has been signed by 160 Members of Parliament, should not the Government respond urgently to the report? Can he give a date for that response? What will he do to achieve greater availability of complementary and alternative medicine through primary care groups?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman wins the award for consistency at Health questions and for being unrelenting on that issue. I hope that we have responded to at least some of his concerns. As he is no doubt aware, last year, for the first time, we issued detailed guidance to all primary care groups in all parts of the country on the potential uses to which complementary therapies may be put. The report is important and we will respond to it in due course, but the position remains as it always has been: it is for the individual GP to decide what form of treatment—whether a mainstream treatment or a complementary treatment—is best suited to the needs of the individual patient.

Ms Chris McCafferty: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the failure of the complaints system in respect of primary health care services. Will he join me in welcoming the appointment of the new chair and chief executive of the new National Clinical Assessment Authority? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will provide much better protection for patients and support for doctors? Does he also agree that, if such an authority had been in place earlier, Harold Shipman would have been far less likely to be able to murder so many people over such a long period, particularly in Hyde and in Todmorden in my constituency?

Mr. Milburn: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about matters relating to Todmorden in her constituency and the sterling work that she has been doing to offer whatever help and support she can to some of the families who were affected. It is important that we get the case of Harold Shipman in perspective. Harold Shipman was a cold, calculating, evil killer. He abused his position of trust in an indescribable way, and it beggars belief that he got away with it for so long.
We must now do three things. First, we must offer whatever help, information and support we can to the very many families affected by his actions. Secondly, we must get on with the public inquiry, so that we all learn the lessons of what went wrong. Thirdly, we must take appropriate action to strengthen the bond of trust that exists between our country's excellent family doctor service and patients.
It is important that all hon. Members understand that Harold Shipman was a one-off. We have an excellent family doctor service. Harold Shipman has done enough damage. I am determined—I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House share that determination—to ensure that he does not inflict further lasting damage on the special relationship between family doctors and their patients.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in future, pressure


on primary care services will be increased if children who need serious surgery do not get it in a timely fashion? Will he take a personal interest in the case of a 14-year-old constituent of mine, Joshua Bruer, who, with 67 other children, is awaiting spinal surgery at the Royal Manchester children's hospital in Pendlebury? Surgery has been delayed as a result of the collapse of the floor of one of the operating theatres, which was built only two and a half years ago. I have corresponded on the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt. The waiting time is now 14 months for such surgery. Children who need spinal surgery need it quickly, otherwise the injury that they have suffered will be compounded as they grow taller and they will have further problems in later life. Will the right hon. Gentleman take a direct personal interest in the problems of spinal surgery for children in Manchester?

Mr. Milburn: Yes, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into the case.

NHS Complaints

Mr. John Austin: When he intends to publish a report on his review of the NHS complaints system. [142902]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The evaluation of the complaints procedure has been completed and the project team will submit its report at the end of this month. We will publish the report as soon as possible, once we have had the opportunity to consider its findings.

Mr. Austin: No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the report by Age Concern "Speaking Out", which expressed concern about upper age limits for treatment, negative attitudes to elderly people and the fact that a third of the respondents recorded the difficulty that they had in accessing the complaints machinery and their fear of recriminations. In the light of Age Concern's report, what action is being taken to combat age discrimination in the NHS and to ensure that elderly people have access to and confidence in an independent complaints machinery?

Ms Stuart: I am aware of Age Concern's report. It is important to put it on the record that we do not accept age discrimination within the NHS at any level, whether in the handling of complaints or in treatment. Many accident and emergency departments have fast-tracking for hip fractures, which particularly affect the elderly. We must distinguish between the process of making a complaint and providing support for that. With regard to speeding up the complaints process and giving people the support that they need, we are making progress with our evaluation at the end of the month, and the new patient advocacy and liaison services and the patients forums will provide independent support for all who need it, taking proper account of the needs of people of all ages.

Mr. David Davis: How will the new complaints procedure work with the Commission for Health Improvement and, in particular, the National Clinical Assessment Authority?

Ms Stuart: It is important to recognise the Government's commitment that the NHS as an

organisation should always learn from its mistakes, and complaints are one of the mechanisms by which we learn that mistakes have occurred. From the chief medical officer's report "An Organisation with a Memory" and our acceptance of that report, to the implementation of serious incident monitoring, to the relationship with the patients forums, whenever the Commission for Health Improvement or the National Clinical Assessment Authority investigates an area, there will be a two-way feedback mechanism whereby both organisations can learn from the complaints received. That two-way valve will allow not only the trusts but the NHS as a whole to learn from such feedback. In addition, there will be an assessment of the complaints made against all doctors as part of their review in our annual appraisal system. We hope that the whole package will reduce any necessity for complaints and ensure that serious incidents are picked up at every level.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key component of any complaints system should be its independence? Does she accept that the placement of the patient advocacy function contained in the Health and Social Care Bill in the hands of the health authorities that will commission them seriously compromises that independence?

Ms Stuart: We wish independence to be established at every level. The Health and Social Care Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, contains a clear statutory provision for patients forums, part of whose function will be to ensure that independent support is put in place. Whether local health authorities should provide such independent support or whether there should be some other mechanism will be an ideal subject for debate in Committee.

Dr. Liam Fox: What real redress will patients have when they find themselves in a situation such as that described by Mr. Ross Carter, consultant in gastroenterology and pancreatic surgery, who said today that his unit had inadequate theatre access to deal with emergencies and malignancies, let alone
those unfortunate patients currently languishing on our waiting lists
and little prospect of admission for patients owing to waiting list management transfers on to deferred lists. Ross Carter says:
We have … reached the stage beyond the every day chaos … I feel the clinicians and nurses involved within our unit can no longer be held responsible for patient safety.
What redress can patients in that situation have?

Ms Stuart: Patients already have means of redress and they will have even more as a result of our increased investment in the NHS which will provide us with more doctors and nurses. Just for the record, if the hon. Gentleman is interested in what has happened since the Government took office, there have been some 290,000 more emergency admissions than under the previous Tory Government, as well as 623,000 more routine admissions and 686,000 more first out-patient attendances. There is a continuous improvement and that will go on. The Tories' proposal to privatise the NHS is no solution.

Tony Wright: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the part of the NHS complaints


system which has the complete confidence of patients because of its independence is the ombudsman system. The ombudsman also has regular dealings with community health councils as they attempt to negotiate people through the complaints system. Has there been consultation with the ombudsman about the Government's proposals for the abolition of CHCs—and, if not, could there be?

Ms Stuart: It is important to recognise that only something like 50 per cent. of CHC 's support individual complainants. To assume that the current structure of dealing with complaints is completely covered by CHCs is not the whole picture. Regarding consultation with the ombudsman, that is something that we can take forward.

Prosthetics

Dr. Julian Lewis: Pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for New Forest, East of 7 December, what progress his Department has made in making artificial limbs with lifelike silicone coatings available to NHS patients. [142903]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): In cases in which silicone cosmesis is clinically appropriate, we wish to see equitable access across the country. In 2001–02 and recurrently, funding will therefore be provided for the NHS to increase existing provision of high to low definition cosmesis which, in future, will be available through a new contract from the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency.

Dr. Lewis: I welcome the Minister's response, but may I express concern about whether that provision will ever appear? Does he recall the case of my constituent, a little girl called Laura Giddings, whose lower leg was blown off in the Planet Hollywood terrorist outrage in South Africa? Does he recall the campaign that was waged throughout the second half of 1999 to enable the parents of children in that position to get realistic-looking limbs for them? Does he recall the meeting that we had in October that year, and the letter that he wrote in November 1999? In that letter, he said:
I am looking at ways in which we can make improved silicone cosmesis available through the NHS
If the Minister is saying that silicone cosmesis is going to come, but that he does not know when that will be, so far down the line and so close to a general election, will he at least reconsider a proposal which he always refused to consider in the past, and allow parents who choose to get more lifelike limbs for their children to at least be given the value of the free limb as a contribution to the cost of the more expensive limb, which gives the child a chance to look normal? Otherwise, it is just more warm words and more great headlines for the Government, but no real action whatever.

Mr. Hutton: We have just had a classic example of an hon. Member reading out a pre-rehearsed question and completely disregarding the answer given by a Minister from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not expecting me to announce that, from April 2001 onwards, the new high definition/low definition cosmesis will be available on the NHS—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is going to happen. I know that the hon.

Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not like that, but I must point out to him that his party had nearly 20 years in which to make that provision available, but they never did. I have just announced that the new cosmesis will be available on the NHS, and it is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman could not find any words to welcome that important announcement.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: I pay tribute to the response of the Department of Health to the campaign that was waged locally by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), a number of other people and me on lifelike prosthetic limbs, and which was supported by our local newspaper, The Southern Daily Echo. Does my hon. Friend accept that the provision will make a tremendous difference to the life chances of children for whom this treatment will now be available, as it will enable them to wear lifelike limbs out and about, to school and wherever they go? I assure him that Justin Gregory and Hannah Rideout, who are children of my constituents, will benefit directly from the change and will regard the provision as a great step forward, enabling them to lead a life enhanced by this change in NHS policy.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the work that he and others have done in drawing attention to this issue. Making the new equipment available is an important step change for the NHS. It is long overdue, but we are now taking action. It is obviously important, especially for young people, but also for everyone who has had a limb amputated, as they should have access to the latest technology and the widest range of choice in prosthetic limbs. We are taking action, and this is a good example of what we mean by modernising the NHS. It is a great pity that the Opposition do not recognise that.

Domiciliary Care

Mrs. Anne Campbell: If he will make a statement on the availability of domiciliary care for the elderly. [142904]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The NHS plan is providing an extra £900 million by 2003–04 for investment in intermediate care and related services to promote independence and improve quality of care for older people. These additional resources will enable 50,000 more people to live independently at home through additional home care and other support services. In 1999–2000, the number of people aged 65 and over who were helped to live at home rose by 20,000 compared with the previous year. Overall, the total revenue provision for social services in 2001–02 will be £9.848 billion, which represents an increase on provision in 2000–01 of 6.2 per cent. in cash terms.

Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be warmly received in Cambridge, which has a huge domiciliary care shortage that causes severe problems, especially for elderly people. Will he tell me whether the Government plan to ease recruitment and retention problems in places such as Cambridge? Will he


also comment on the situation that might arise if we had, say, £24 million worth of cuts in the constituency? Would he like to say how that might impact on the situation?

Mr. Hutton: Yes, I might like to say how that would impact. We all recognise that we need to do much more to support and promote independence, especially to allow older people to stay at home for longer, and we are beginning to take that action. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in Cambridgeshire, where the council provided home care support to an extra 6 per cent. of people this year.
I hear what my hon. Friend says about local recruitment difficulties. We are working with the Local Government Association and others to ease recruitment and retention problems. The new single status agreement that has been negotiated for local authority employees will allow authorities to tailor their pay rates to meet local labour market conditions. We have a great deal more to do, but it is clear that all the progress that we have made would be compromised and jeopardised by the return to government of a Conservative party that is not pledged to match our expenditure on social services, which would cut social services spending and which would threaten the independence and health of many older people in our country.

Mr. Nick Harvey: Ministers have said several times in recent weeks—indeed, the Prime Minister made the same comment before Christmas—that there has been a big rise in the number of domiciliary care packages during the past year and that that offsets the loss in care home places. If that is so, and 20,000 new domiciliary care packages are available, will the Minister tell us where the packages are and how they are being costed and paid for? Will he publish an area-by-area list showing where they are? Even at this late stage, on the eve of introducing legislation, will the Government reconsider the report of their royal commission on the matter? It recommended that all personal care, whether provided on a domiciliary basis or in residential care homes, should be paid for. Is the hon. Gentleman genuinely satisfied with the current circumstances, which are so illogical that those with long-term chronic conditions do not get their personal care paid for, while those with acute conditions do? That cannot be right or just, so will the Government reconsider the matter before introducing legislation?

Mr. Hutton: The initial figures that the hon. Gentleman wants have already been made available by the publication of the performance assessment framework. The collection of the statistics was overseen by the Office for National Statistics. Figures are available by authority, so he and other Liberal Democrat Members might wish to consider those statistics. I am sure that he will find the information that he seeks.
The hon. Gentleman's other point concerned personal and nursing care. We and our society have a choice to make. The Government have decided to make available nearly £1 billion of new investment to support a wider range of health and social care services that will benefit hundreds of thousands of older people in our society. Of course, we could have spent that money in the manner proposed by the royal commission, but that would have benefited relatively few people. We have decided to benefit the many, not the few. It is not true when the hon.

Gentleman says that people do not receive help for their personal care costs when they are in residential care. Seven out of 10 people in nursing homes already receive help with all or some of their personal care costs.

Mr. George Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether Ministers have concluded their response to Professor Edwards's report into elderly care provision in north Staffordshire? If they have done so, when will the response be available?

Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question specifically, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives an answer as soon as possible.

Dr. Liam Fox: Now that the Prime Minister has started to count the beds of patients who are receiving domiciliary care as NHS beds, can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister believes that he has potentially created 20 million beds? Will he also tell us whether a double bed now counts as two beds and whether a room with two beds now constitutes a ward in the Prime Minister's fantasy NHS?

Mr. Hutton: What a bunch of hypocrites members of the modern Tory party are!
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in all that he says. We are not counting the extra 20,000 home care packages as NHS beds; that is completely untrue. We are providing more beds in the NHS.
I think most Labour Members will take the hon. Gentleman's complaints about bed losses with a pinch of salt. He might like to know how many beds were lost when his party was in government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I will: 40,000.

NHS National Plan

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: How many additional doctors will be employed in the NHS under his national plan. [142905]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Under the NHS plan, we will provide 7,500 more consultants and at least 2,000 more general practitioners by 2004. We will also provide 1,000 more specialist registrars, to provide further growth in consultant numbers beyond that period, as well as 450 more GPs in training.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the 2,000 extra doctors announced in the NHS plan included both those who were leaving general practice and those in training, is it not time for the Secretary of State to consider the proposals of the British Medical Association, and to discuss with the association how the number might be increased?

Mr. Milburn: Yes; and I have always made it clear to the BMA and others that we regard the 2,000 figure— which, incidentally, represents a net increase of 2,000, consisting of extra recruits minus those who will be retiring and so forth—to be a floor, or minimum. If we can do more, we will.
While there will be substantial increases in the number of GPs and doctors generally during the next four years or so, there will be an even greater inc rease in the number of doctors in future years. We have already provided an extra 1,100 medical student places, and there will be a further 1,000. That represents a 40 per cent. increase in the number of medical students who will come through the system in the next five, six, seven and eight years, and will make a substantial difference to the quality not just of primary care but of the acute care services mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
It is all a question of investment, and how much we are prepared to put in. The Government have made a clear choice. We are prepared to invest in the NHS and in social services; the question for the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and for his hon. Friends on the Front Bench, is whether they are prepared to match our levels of expenditure and investment—and not just in the NHS.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) nods. Perhaps he will nod again in response to this question: is he prepared to match our investment in social services? If he is not, elderly care services will suffer, as will services for vulnerable children and disabled people.
It should be remembered that the party whose members bleat about the number of bed blockers in hospitals will increase that number. It will also reduce the range of rehabilitation services in the community, and once again elderly people will end up paying the price for the Tories' failure to invest.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome the increase of £23.4 million for Shropshire health authority, which is more than double the increase achieved—if that is the right word—in the last full year of Tory government, 1996–97. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what our health service needs is certainty of funding in the future, so that planning can take place and doctors and nurses can be recruited? Does it not also need an administrative structure that is responsive to patient needs? Finally, does it not need another Labour Government?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is light about that, as he is about so many other things. Whit the NHS needs is sustained investment, not just for one year but over a period of years, and that is precisely what is happening. For instance, health authorities will receive average real-terms increases of 6.23 per cent. this year and 5.85 per cent. next year. Let me remind my hon. Friend of the position during the last two years of the last Government: the increase was 1.1 per cent. in 1996–97, and 0.85 per cent. in 1995–96.
There is a choice for the country. It is, as it has always been, the choice between more investment in our public services with Labour, and cuts in public services with the Conservatives.

Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Secretary of State agree that additional doctors will not complete the picture unless there are additional staff beds for those doctors to treat patients in? In Oxfordshire, the John Radcliffe is absolutely full to bursting, with no beds in nursing homes available for patients to be

discharged into and no beds in community hospitals available for patients to be discharged into. Will he today urge the health authority to use the money that he has given—I accept that, this year, he has finally given a generous settlement—to reopen the community hospital beds that he closed, which are desperately needed? It is bad enough not letting people into hospital, without failing to let people out of hospital, too.

Mr. Milburn: One of these days, the hon. Gentleman will have something positive to say about the NHS. I look forward to the day. On the situation in Oxfordshire, he is right: we have made more money available. As he and the Conservative party are always complaining about the need to ensure that local health services are in the driving seat in determining how best to spend the money, that is an issue for the local health service to resolve.
On bed numbers, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is right. For 30 years, the number of beds in hospitals has been falling. A total of 40,000 beds disappeared in the last 10 years of the previous Government alone. The number is finally rising again precisely because of the investment that the Government are making and will continue to make.

National Plan

Mr. Alan Simpson: If there is to be a continuing and separate regulatory structure for midwives within the new national plan for the NHS. [142906]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Our proposals for a new Nursing and Midwifery Council provide for the separate registration of midwives and the regulation of their practice.

Mr. Simpson: I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will know that, in the review that was commissioned by the Department on the delivery of midwifery services, recommendations were made about the creation of a statutory midwifery committee and about the nature of the representation of midwives on the new Nursing and Midwifery Council. In response to representations that have already been made by midwives in the House before Christmas, can he say whether midwives will have equal representation with nurses on the committee and whether they will have a separate and independent midwifery committee?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend will understand that it would be premature to anticipate the result of the consultation, which is still continuing, but I can confirm that midwives will have equal representation with the other professions that will be regulated: nurses and health visitors. The new council will have a duty to set training standards for midwifery. The issue of a separate midwifery committee has been raised during the consultation. I simply confirm that we are considering those representations.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: We know that, for the first time in many years, the number of students applying to become doctors has declined. Is it the same for midwifery?

Mr. Denham: I am pleased to say that we have more than enough midwifery applications, despite the fact that there are now 55 per cent. more training places for pre-registration midwifery than three years ago. There are not enough midwives at the moment. As so often, the reason is that the previous Government failed to invest in training enough professional staff for the NHS. This Government are investing in those extra training places. We are attracting the applicants and those midwives will become available to the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, this month, with the Royal College of Midwives, we are launching a new campaign that is designed to attract qualified midwives back to the NHS. We have had tremendous success with our return to nursing campaign. This month, we are extending that to the midwifery profession because we need more midwives in the NHS.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that there will be a separate body for midwives. I met midwives in the Medway maritime hospital. They were concerned about their ability to be able to influence policy at both a national and local level. They were particularly concerned about the number of midwifery-led units in hospitals and wanted an increase. Obviously, recruitment is crucial, but does he not agree that midwives have a distinct and unique role to play both in influencing and in assisting NHS policy as we move forward with the NHS plan?

Mr. Denham: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, but for the avoidance of confusion I should make it clear that I did not say that there would be a separate body for midwives. There will be a Nursing and Midwifery Council on which midwives will be represented, as will nurses and health visitors. I was responding to the proposal that there should be a separate midwifery committee. I can confirm that that issue has been raised in consultation and we are actively considering it now. We accept the importance of the midwifery profession and will look to reflect that in our final proposals.

Depleted Uranium

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I apologise to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), for the short time that the statement has been available.
During the last few days, concern has been expressed in the media and in the House about the possible exposure of United Kingdom forces to depleted uranium in the Balkans. This reflects a series of reports from the media and elsewhere that the health of peacekeepers in Bosnia or Kosovo may have been affected by its use. It is suggested that some UK service personnel may have become ill as a result of exposure to depleted uranium in the Balkans.
This afternoon, I shall set out our position on depleted uranium, and list the steps we are taking and intend to take. Depleted uranium is a very dense heavy metal. It results from the uranium enrichment process, and because the majority of the more radioactive isotopes are removed in this process, depleted uranium is about 40 per cent. less radioactive than natural uranium. Because of its density and metallurgic properties, depleted uranium is ideally suited for use as a kinetic energy penetrator for use in anti-armour munitions. The UK has developed and deployed a 120 mm armour-piercing round for use in the Challenger main battle tank. This ammunition was used in the Gulf war, where about 100 rounds were fired by us against Iraqi armour, as well as some rounds during training in Saudi Arabia. This ammunition provides a battle-winning military capability. Alternative materials are not as effective. Therefore, DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future, because when this country commits our forces to conflict, we fight to win. Our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that. To deny them a legitimate capability would be quite wrong.
Handled in accordance with the regulations, DU shells present no hazard to our forces. We have long recognised, however, that on the battlefield its debris might present a hazard from chemical toxicity, in the same way as any heavy metal such as lead, and a low-level radiological hazard. The risk from chemical toxicity would arise from ingestion of the soluble depleted uranium oxides, and the radiological risk primarily from inhalation of the insoluble depleted uranium oxides. Those risks arise from the dust created when DU strikes a hard target such as an armoured vehicle. In its massive form, as expended rounds or solid fragments, it is a negligible hazard.
In response to the health concerns of Gulf veterans, the Ministry of Defence has, both in 1993 and 1999, published details of those hazards together with our estimates of the risk that they might have posed to troops in the Gulf. We believe those risks to have been low, which is borne out by the findings of our medical assessment programme for Gulf veterans. There has been no evidence, during the deployment or subsequently, of the kidney damage that would be the chief indication of heavy metal poisoning. Radiological damage would become manifested as an increased rate of cancer only after a long period of latency. Furthermore, there is currently no evidence, after 10 years, of a higher rate of

cancer among Gulf veterans compared to a control group. We currently offer tests to Gulf veterans who attend the medical assessment programme for whole body load of uranium, if there is a clinical indication that uranium might be linked to the illnesses that they manifest.
Substantial amounts of research into the health risks of uranium have been conducted and published over many years. Recent work by reputable bodies has assessed this literature in the context of possible battlefield exposures to DU.
The conclusions of all that work, including that by the RAND corporation, the US Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, and the US Institute of Medicine, is that there is no evidence linking DU to cancers or to the more general ill health being experienced by some Gulf veterans. As regards exposures, important work at the Baltimore Veterans Affairs clinic in the United States is monitoring Gulf veterans known to be at the highest risk of exposure due to "friendly-fire" incidents. None of those troops, including those who retain DU shrapnel in their bodies, have health problems related to DU. Testing of Gulf and Balkans veterans for uranium in the US, Canada and Belgium has failed to show any of them excreting higher than background levels unless they have embedded shrapnel.
Depleted uranium has also been fired by NATO forces during operations in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995, and in Kosovo in 1999. Compared with around 300 tonnes fired in the Gulf, only 3 tonnes were fired in Bosnia and around 9 tonnes in Kosovo, very little of it in the British sector.
Conscious of the potential risks that DU posed, we issued precautionary guidance to our forces in Kosovo about the need not to approach recently struck, burned-out armoured vehicles possibly hit by DU, which present the main hazard, and about the need to wear suitable protective clothing if they had to work in the vicinity of those vehicles.
The working environment of our forces in the Balkans is already closely monitored because of health and safety and environmental concerns about the theatre, which extend well beyond the question of DU. The Ministry of Defence is aware of no evidence to date of unusual ill health among our Balkan peacekeepers, or specifically of any ill health that would suggest heavy-metal poisoning. Indeed, a thorough epidemiological study was done by King's college in the context of Gulf health, which examined a cohort of nearly 4,000 Bosnia peacekeepers. The study found no difference in the level of symptoms between them and troops who had been deployed neither to the Gulf nor to Bosnia.
Media reports have also focused on the test firing of DU at UK ranges. Apart from a small amount of contained firing at Foulness and Aldermaston, that has been concentrated in the ranges at Kirkcudbright on the Solway Firth, and at Eskmeals in Cumbria. It is fired at Kirkcudbright into the sea, and at Eskmeals—until 1995—into armour plate targets. Safety at the ranges, and in their environs, has been a paramount concern. The DU firing programme is subject to regulation under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2000. The Environment Agency and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency also have oversight of the firing programme. A detailed review of the environmental impact of firing DU at these ranges was undertaken by the independent environmental consultants W. S. Atkins. The consultants


concluded that the radiation doses to members of the public and the associated risks from DU released into the environment were extremely low.
I have spelled out the background to depleted uranium, and to our and other existing research on the issue, because it is important to put some of the inaccurate and inflammatory media coverage in context. These issues are not new, and we must not unduly alarm service personnel or their families about the position.
That said, we recognise that there are concerns among our people, and we recognise a need to reassure them. We take very seriously our responsibility to our service personnel, given the demands that we make on them during operations.
Our response, therefore, will be to identify an additional appropriate voluntary screening programme for our service personnel and civilians who have served in the Balkans. We shall do that on the basis of the best available science. We shall consult appropriate national bodies, such as the United Kingdom national screening committee of the Department of Health. Another important source of external scientific advice will be the report currently under preparation by the Royal Society, which is taking an independent look at depleted uranium.
It will be important also to co-ordinate an approach with allies, many of whom are assessing the same reports as I make this statement. A crucial part of our approach will be to discuss with allies their data on risks to health in the Balkans, the health of peacekeepers in the Balkans, the responses that they plan, and to ensure that all data available across NATO are pooled as a basis for subsequent decisions. We are also conscious that the United Nations environmental programme has surveyed sites in Kosovo and we await the publication of its final report with interest. I should add that its interim statement refers to only slightly elevated levels of radiation at eight of the sites that the programme monitored. I am also announcing that the UK will enhance its existing environmental surveillance programme in the Balkans to ensure that no health threats to our forces, and indeed to the local civilian population, are overlooked. In the meantime, any individual who believes that their health may have been damaged by service in the Balkans should seek medical advice. If their doctor considers that there is evidence that depleted uranium might have contributed to ill health, tests for uranium levels will be carried out.
I hope that this statement puts the current debate into context, provides the necessary reassurance to the House as well as to our forces and their families, and indicates the way ahead. We are providing battle-winning equipment for our forces and taking seriously our responsibility for our forces' welfare. I am sure that the House will agree that they deserve no less.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving me a copy of the statement before he came to the Dispatch Box. I also welcome the statement generally, given all the press speculation over the past few weeks.
The Minister is right to be here today. The reasons for the Government to have acted are threefold: first, to calm the speculation that has been raging for some time, not only in the past couple of days but over the Christmas

period and before; secondly—as the Minister said—to reassure service personnel and their families that the Ministry of Defence is concerned enough about their well-being to be prepared to investigate if such investigation is necessary; and, thirdly, to find out whether there is any basis in truth for the recent spate of allegations, which appear to have come mostly from the Italians, but also from elsewhere. Most of the Italian cases come from Bosnia, as I am sure the Minister will confirm. I shall say more about that in a second.
The Minister referred to reports published earlier that suggest that there is no risk. For example, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations have said that they do not think that there is a radiation risk. They refer to this as a toxicity issue rather than a radiation issue. Will the Minister spend a little more time explaining the basis for those statements? The Ministry of Defence produced a report, "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict", which came to similar conclusions.
I also note, given the point about the Italian cases in Bosnia, that a Mrs. Obradovic, a haematologist in the Serb-controlled half of Bosnia, said recently that the leukaemia rate among the 500,000 residents in that section was the same as before the Bosnian war. That was one of the areas that experienced the greatest concentration of the use of these weapons. I would, therefore, be concerned if they were experiencing no change while we are apparently seeing a change in service personnel, whoever they may be.
Will the Minister confirm that there was no firing of depleted uranium rounds on the testing range at Bovington on the Salisbury plain?
I would like to know what has changed in the past 24 hours. A Ministry of Defence spokesman ruled out health checks yesterday, then suddenly, in today's papers, we were being briefed that there would be health checks. The Minister said that there was no new evidence, so perhaps he could explain whether this change has been driven from sources outside the Ministry of Defence, particularly from Downing street, which appears to have provided the statement. Will he explain the reason for the change and for this early statement?
Given that this issue has created some concern over the past few weeks, why did the Minister and his colleagues choose not to make the sort of statement that he has made today to clarify the position? Surely that would have soothed some of the more ludicrous press comments. Why, then, did the Ministry choose to leave officials to make only simple statements?
What will the Minister's response to other NATO nations be? The Italians are reported as saying that if they do not get the weapons banned, they will withdraw from NATO. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Italian Government on that? Expletives can be deleted in this case.
Is not the Minister's real point, with which I agree, that there is an issue of balance of risk? After all, we are dealing with war-fighting weapons that are used in the most dangerous and risky circumstances. The weapons are used to protect British or allied forces, which may have to engage tanks or armoured vehicles that would otherwise be likely to destroy their position or even kill them. Is not that ultimately the main decision—whether there is any risk and what the balance of risk is, given the


nature of the circumstances in which such weapons are likely to be used? Establishing these factors quickly, and doing so in the public domain as much as possible, would reassure service personnel and their families as much as others in the country who want to know that the Government and the Ministry of Defence will do whatever it takes.

Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his response, and should like to deal with some of the details that he raised. He rightly mentioned the greater risks from toxicity than from radiation, particularly the lack of any perceived link between radioactivity in the air and incidence of leukaemia. The World Health Organisation made its statement based on work that has been done with uranium miners who, while they show incidence of other cancers, do not show a higher incidence of leukaemia, and on the evidence from Chernobyl where, again, there was no increase in the incidence of leukaemia, as I understand from the WHO's reports. However, it is right to identify the fact that there are potential risks, and I shall come later to risk management.
The hon. Gentleman referred to data in other countries and how they are perceived. That reinforces the need to pool data and seek a common methodology and approach across the NATO countries. Discussions are taking place bilaterally and also at NATO level in that context. Indeed, there is a meeting of NATO countries this week.
I am advised that depleted uranium has not been fired at Bovington. I am happy to provide reassurance on that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the reason for the change and the impact of media coverage. Inevitably, greater concern will be felt by our troops reading the weight of media coverage on the subject. It is important that our forces have the best possible reassurance regarding their position. That is why we are looking at an expanded programme, in dialogue with the appropriate medical and scientific authorities, to ensure that we have the best possible mechanism for delivering that. As the hon. Gentleman rightly anticipated, we shall be having meetings at NATO.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about risk. It is important to stress that the correct philosophy is not risk avoidance, which is impossible and, as he suggested, may carry much greater risks to our forces in terms of loss of military capability. That is why I believe that it would be fundamentally wrong to move away from justifiable weapons that enable our people to undertake the tasks that the country gives them when we send them into conflict to fight and win.
We are concerned, however, with risk management—the evaluation and handling of risk, and the avoidance of unnecessary risk. That is why we are looking at further environmental studies, as I outlined in the statement, and at individual monitoring. We believe that that is the responsible way in which to handle the issue. I hope that that provides the necessary and justified reassurance to our forces that we are making our best efforts and using our best endeavours for their welfare.

Mr. Bruce George: Will the Minister accept that almost everybody here welcomes not only the statement but the enthusiastic, unprompted, spontaneous factors that led to his appearance at the Dispatch Box this

afternoon? Will he confirm that the first two thirds of his speech was written by the same civil servants who wrote Government policy on the Gulf war syndrome between 1991 and 1997? Does he accept that I am elated that politicians sit on top of decision making in our system of government and not civil servants? Finally, does he recall what the Government said to the Select Committee on Defence in 1997? They said:
The new Government believes we have a debt of honour to those who have served their country in the Armed Forces …
I think that today's statement confirms that that debt of honour, for whatever reason, will be paid.

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his concluding comments. When we came in as the new Administration, the previous occupant of this position, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), made it clear that we wanted to provide the best available resources to get to the facts and the truth and to be guided by the science. That is the basis of my statement today. We want to use the best possible scientific advice to establish the facts. If that means that we can only provide reassurance to our forces that there is no risk to them, that will be of value in itself. If there is a risk, we shall be able to consider how we can best manage it and remedy the position for individuals. Therefore, we have to be guided carefully by the science so that we make the best practical decisions for both the health of our forces and their operational effectiveness. My hon. Friend and his Select Committee will be working with us to achieve that aim.

Mr. Paul Keetch: On behalf of all those on the Liberal Democrat Benches may I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of it? As for the timing, Mr. Speaker, you hear almost weekly requests for statements from the Government from those on the Opposition Benches, so it would be churlish to criticise the timing when such a statement is made. We welcome it. We also welcome any aim to ascertain a connection between DU and health risks for service personnel and civilians. Will the screening that he has announced be a one-off or will it be on-going?
In the Gulf, the cocktail of immunisations, environmental pollution and any agencies used by Iraq make it difficult to ascertain whether there is a definite link between DU and ill health. In the Balkans, such a distinction could be made clearer. Can the Minister give us a few more details? When will the tests begin? Will they be connected with the study that is already being undertaken by the Royal Society into so-called Gulf war syndrome?
The Minister mentioned the allies. The weapons were used in United Nations and NATO operations. How will discussions with the allies take place? He also mentioned the two training grounds. Can he give an absolute guarantee that those munitions have not been used on other testing sites in the United Kingdom, as there have been suggestions that they have? If there is contamination, what guidance will be given to the civilian populations in areas where the weapons were used, to non-governmental organisations and even to the British police and civilians


who now operate there? Should not the cautionary principle that applies to sites where cluster bombs were used also be used for DU?

Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He asks about the timing of implementation of the programme. That will depend on the scientific advice that we receive. As he rightly says, that advice will also be guided by the independent study that the Royal Society is conducting. As the spokesman said, the Royal Society instigated that study, but we have been happy to co-operate. We will be working with the Royal Society to get the best advice on the nature and timing of the programme and, equally importantly, evaluation of the results. We shall have discussions through NATO with our allies on the issue, in particular to ensure that we pool data so that we have a much wider database for the programme.
I am not aware of any sites in the United Kingdom where depleted uranium has been fired, apart from those that I identified in my statement. Of course, in other areas, some of the vehicles that were hit will already have been removed. In many areas the level of radiation is fairly low. An environmental evaluation will need to be undertaken as part of the programme. We shall obviously work with the United Nations mission in Kosovo precisely to determine the best way to handle such matters, because much of the responsibility for them lies within UNMIK's remit, rather than that of KFOR.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Minister prepared to put in the Library the interim findings of the air cells unit of KFOR?

Mr. Spellar: I think that I shall have to write to my hon. Friend on that particular subject.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I welcome very much the assurance that the Minister has given to the Gulf veterans, does he accept that there is a need for continuing concern and care about the situation in areas where the weapons are being tested or destroyed? In particular, on the basis of the statement, can he give a clear assurance to the residents of Shoeburyness, Foulness and Great Wakering in my constituency that no meaningful health hazard has been identified from the activities there? Will he seek to persuade the local health authority to publish statistics that show that it has found no evidence of worrying health statistics that might be related to the destruction of weapons? Can he give us an assurance on supervision and control—for example, through the Environment Agency—when the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency goes through the changes involved in privatisation?
We welcome the statement, and the Minister's intention in making it, but does he accept that there is a genuine need to give continuing care, concern and attention to the areas where such weapons have been tested or destroyed?

Mr. Spellar: As I identified in the statement, the work at those sites is already under the supervision of the appropriate environment agency. That will continue irrespective of the ownership status of any site. We have

no indication of any meaningful health hazard arising from the work at Shoeburyness and Foulness. Equally, we are not aware of any figures from the health authority, but we liaise with health authorities in all the areas where we work. I am more than happy to take up that matter on the hon. Gentleman's behalf, to provide the necessary reassurance to his constituents.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the Minister accept that some soldiers returning from the Gulf war and the Balkans have developed very serious illnesses? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—of my constituent, Mr. Dave Robertson? He went to the Gulf war a fit, healthy, active career soldier, but developed into an absolute wreck when he came back. His skin bleeds for no reason; he bleeds internally; he has developed epilepsy; he has regular seizures; and he has had a number of strokes. He sees a neurologist, an orthopaedic surgeon and a rheumatologist. He has respiratory problems; he has had pneumonia and pleurisy; and he has chronic fatigue syndrome. He needs permanent daily support just to exist.
If depleted uranium was not the cause of that, what was? If it was not depleted uranium, was it the toxic vaccines that were given to Mr. Robertson as a matter of course to prevent him from suffering illnesses? The previous Tory Government did nothing about that for nearly 10 years. There are many people, such as Mr. Robertson, who have deep, deep health problems, and it is the responsibility of a responsible, caring Government, such as this, to do something about it and try to find out exactly why Mr. Robertson and many of his colleagues have those illnesses.

Mr. Spellar: I fully understand the feeling that my hon. Friend has for his constituent. Indeed, several hon. Members have constituents who served in the Gulf and who are suffering from illnesses. That is precisely why previous Ministers for the Armed Forces have announced a range of studies, which the Government have continued, to try to ascertain the causes of those illnesses. There is a difference between veterans from the Gulf and those from Bosnia and Kosovo, in that those who served in the Balkans do not show higher levels of illness compared with a comparable group.
It is certainly true that a number of Gulf veterans suffer from illnesses and that they are showing considerable symptoms. However, the root causes of those illnesses is still not clear from the work that we and other allied countries have undertaken.
We have funded several programmes. Some of them have already reported, but others have still to report because they will run for a number of years and are extremely extensive. We have funded those programmes to get to the bottom of the causes of the Gulf war illnesses, to see what can be done to remedy the illnesses of those who served in the Gulf and to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I warmly welcome the Minister's statement? It is clear that he is doing the right thing, and that the research will build on the work that was put in place by the Secretary of State and the substantial work—I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge this—that was put in place by the previous Government but that failed to come to the same conclusion. Indeed, we are not significantly further


forward than we were several years ago. I also welcome the fact that he acknowledges that depleted uranium weapons are designed to inflict the most serious damage on the Queen's enemies and are an extremely effective weapon.
Will the Minister reassure the House that in the work done on testing armour-piercing weapons, all effective steps were taken to protect those who took part in the work? Will the research that now takes place consider in detail the equipment that was used and the clothes that were worn by those who examined the targets almost immediately after the test firings?

Mr. Spellar: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about the detailed points that he has raised. As I said in my statement, the work was undertaken under the control of the environmental agencies and under the appropriate ionising radiation regulations. It was subsequently evaluated by W. S. Atkins, who are extremely professional and experienced consultants on this matter. Therefore, we have received a considerable degree of reassurance regarding the environmental safety of the work force involved and the surrounding environment, and thus the residents in the area.
I fully acknowledge that work has been undertaken to try to ascertain the cause of the illnesses suffered by Gulf veterans that are now universally acknowledged to exist. Although we still have not determined the cause, we might have eliminated a number of possible causes.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny whether tests of the weapons have taken or will take place in Northumberland? As I suspect that he will tell us that the civilian population is safe, why does he not test the weapons in his constituency?

Mr. Spellar: Possibly because I represent one of the most urban constituencies in the country, where the amount of open land available is considerably less than at Otterburn. Its use by the armed forces is greatly welcomed by the residents for whom the work is a significant source of employment. The area's use helps to maintain an attractive national park and to sustain a considerable number of wildlife, which may be less disturbed by human intrusion.
I am not aware of depleted uranium rounds having been used at Otterburn. Equally, our application for the extension of Otterburn is related not to depleted uranium but much more to rocket-launching, systems and the capacity of the AS90, which is a considerable addition to our military capability and one that I am sure we shall all welcome.

Mr. Peter Viggers: In some countries—notably, the United States—the attitude is that if their service personnel are put in harm's way and suffer in any manner, they should be supported and compensated. However, in this country the attitude sometimes is that if a service man suffers injury, he must demonstrate that he is injured and that he derived that injury from serving in the armed forces. That is not a party political point; it is based on constituency experience.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the provisions for war pensions whereby the burden of proof

in the first seven years is on the Ministry of Defence, which has to establish that a particular condition was not caused by an individual's service in the armed forces. After seven years, the burden of proof shifts in the other direction. That is analogous to his description of arrangements in the United States.
It is right that we should compensate and seek to assist those people who are injured while serving the country. At the same time, we have a duty to the taxpayer to assure ourselves that an individual's claim is a proper case for compensation. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, war pensions are administered by the Department of Social Security. He will also be aware of the attributable pension, which is payable to people who are injured while serving in the armed forces, although with a slightly different burden of proof.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend rightly stressed the paramount need to reassure our armed forces. There will, of course, be similar concerns among our allies, the Portuguese, the Italians and the Greeks. He also properly said that there should be a pooling of data. Has that not been done comprehensively already? Are we initiating that? To what extent is that a matter not for individual Governments, but for NATO itself to lead?

Mr. Spellar: That matter will be discussed by NATO with a view to drawing up a common methodology, leading to a future pooling of data. However, the actual assessment of individuals' conditions, in all the countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned, is at an early stage. In the one or two countries where there have been programmes of testing for uranium, there has been a fairly limited take-up and, indeed, no presence of uranium has been detected. Urgent discussions are taking place between NATO members to ascertain each country's position. The prime responsibility for delivering programmes at the sharp end will lie with national Governments. However, it is appropriate for discussions to take place at a NATO level to try to co-ordinate them.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Can the Minister reassure my constituents that no depleted uranium has been fired, stored or transported at Aberporth in my constituency, and that there is no health risk to them? Will he also expand on what he said in response to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) regarding the responsibility for toxicity after the privatisation of DERA sites?

Mr. Spellar: That was a slightly different question from the one posed by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on the contamination of a site. As far as I am aware, responsibility for that will lie with the site's owner, although transitional arrangements will be undertaken, depending on the individual circumstances of each site. I am not aware that any depleted uranium rounds were fired at Aberporth. However, I shall check on details of its involvement with depleted uranium and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John McFall: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his statement, but will he take it from me that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence? Veterans' cases have demonstrated


that over the years and we must take the matter seriously. As for the European theatre, he will be aware that in France, four soldiers have contracted leukaemia; in Italy, six soldiers have died; in Belgium, five soldiers have been treated for cancer; and in Spain, eight soldiers are being treated. It is a European-wide and USA-wide issue. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is an effective NATO response and a uniformity of approach on medical issues? Will he also ensure that veterans will receive a much more sympathetic response than has been the case over the past 10 years?

Mr. Spellar: We must not jump to immediate conclusions on the data. My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of cases where people have sadly died. We are not as yet aware of the cause of death. Reports in one paper, for example, suggest that there was a range of different conditions among the six Italians. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is more versed in medical matters than I am, that these conditions are quite different.
We are talking about tens of thousands of people from each of the countries concerned. There are standard data tables which indicate for any population the expected numbers of people who will contract certain conditions and diseases. We must have regard to where there is an abnormal departure from those numbers. We must then consider the potential cause and examine the connection to establish causation and, if necessary, a remedy. That is very much what happened with the work on lung cancer and the smoking of cigarettes. There was an epidemiological study to assess whether there was a much higher incidence of lung cancer, which was followed by work on causation.
We must be concerned, but we must be careful to ensure that we are driven by science. That is the way in which we can best identify a remedy or a way to alleviate people's conditions. At the same time, it is the way in which we can manage the risk to try to avoid such problems in future.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister comment on the statement, which was reported yesterday, by Mr. Haavisto, who is the head of the United Nations environment programme team on Kosovo, that he and his team had been surprised at radiation levels in Kosovo? The team had tested a sample of 11 sites out of the 112 that NATO had identified as having been attacked with depleted uranium rounds. It found significantly increased radiation at eight of them. We agree that our forces should not be militarily disadvantaged in any war—the problem is what health effects remain after the war is over.

Mr. Spellar: The comment to which the hon. Gentleman referred, particularly on the vehicles, was about a slightly increased level of radiation. That is why I said in my statement that we await with interest the final report. I am not saying that to disparage the report. We want to see the full data, conclusions and, potentially, even recommendations. We shall be examining the report together with the Royal Society report to inform our thinking both about potential environmental remediation and individual cases. We must study the data to ascertain

whether they show any potential increase in levels of radioactivity. We must also evaluate the level of risk that the increased level of radioactivity might bring about.
Even in natural conditions there are quite considerable variations in levels of radioactivity between different parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in those areas with substantial amounts of granite, which will show higher levels of background radiation than elsewhere. We must obtain the data before we can make any response, and we hope to have them, in the not too distant future.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What information does my hon. Friend have at his disposal concerning the effects of radiation in Serbia, Iraq or Kosovo on the civil population? Is he prepared to publish whatever information he has? Is he aware that some people, on listening to his statement, would identify a degree of complacency about the effects of depleted uranium on British soldiers? The Italian and Portuguese Governments have expressed the deepest concern about deaths among their soldiers as a result of depleted uranium. Is it not urgent that my hon. Friend publishes at the earliest opportunity the information for which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked so that we can assess the real risk?

Mr. Spellar: I absolutely agree that we should have as much information as possible in the public domain for there to be proper scientific peer review of that information and both the situation and possible remedies. It is unfortunate, therefore, that my hon. Friend immediately leaps to the conclusion that some deaths were automatically caused by depleted uranium. There have been deaths from leukaemia and depleted uranium was used in Kosovo and Bosnia. At the moment, no linkage has been drawn and we therefore have to work on the best available scientific evidence to consider the condition of individuals, any causation and the environmental situation.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to draw attention to any possible threat to civilian populations. I mentioned the matter in my statement, particularly with regard to our further review of environmental conditions in the area as they affect our service personnel and civilians and the local civilian population.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I sit on a Royal British Legion working group concerned with the health of Gulf war veterans and I very much welcome the statement, but does the Minister recognise that Members on both sides of the House owe it to those who serve our country in the armed forces to take a careful and comprehensive attitude to their health following the exercises in which they engage on our behalf? He referred to the medical assessment programme. What proportion of service personnel who went to the Gulf or to the Balkans are having their health monitored? What consultation is taking place with the Royal British Legion to increase participation in the MAP? When does he expect to receive the Royal Society report?

Mr. Spellar: My recollection is that some 3,000 people have been through the medical assessment programme, but the hon. Gentleman should not consider any downturn in numbers to be a failure. Those who have illnesses that they believe may be attributable to service in the Gulf


may have already been seen and the great majority of the rest, if they have illnesses, either may not believe that those are Gulf related or, thank heavens, may be fit and well, as the great majority of those who served in the Gulf are. Therefore, as I have said a number of times, we must always consider the level of illness and whether it is abnormal compared with that in an equivalent cohort. I have already described our work comparing those who went to the Balkans or to the Gulf with those who did not. We are dealing with separate situations. We must recognise that and then use scientific method to ascertain possible reasons for differences. That leads to the question of possible remedies.
As yet, I am not aware of the time scale for the Royal Society report, but I am advised that it is coming along fairly well and will not be delayed too long.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Minister examine the 1993 letters from two of his predecessors to me which confirm, first, that those soldiers most at risk in the Gulf war—tank crews and other personnel—had no warning of the dangers of depleted uranium; and secondly, that test firings were carried out at four sites in Britain, including Foulness? Will he examine the answers given at that time to a range of parliamentary questions? One was tabled on 28 March 1991, during the Gulf war, and in 1993 an early-day motion demanded a full inquiry. All received contemptible and contemptuous answers from the Government of the day, who were informed by the Ministry of Defence. Is not it common sense that a battlefield covered with depleted uranium dust—tonnes of it—represents a hazard to human health and that the perception of danger is real? We need to protect those who put their lives on the line for this country from not only real dangers, but powerful perceptions of danger.

Mr. Spellar: I think that my hon. Friend welcomes the measures that I announced today. During my preparations, I did not have time to go back to questions from the early 1990s, but I will refresh my memory later. He is right that we must examine the potential risks faced by our forces when they are engaged in operations. Some risks are inevitable; some are potentially avoidable. If we can avoid them without losing battlefield effectiveness, we should

do so. It is important that we learn the lessons of every operation in order to improve our performance. That is why we have undertaken the work that I outlined in my statement. I hope that that will provide reassurance to my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and, most importantly, our service men and women.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I welcome the Minister's statement and hope that it will bring calm and reassurance to our soldiers, sailors and airmen who may be affected. It is distressing when soldiers, sailors and airmen do not know the cause of their illness, especially for those who might have been affected by depleted uranium or Gulf war syndrome.
Will the Minister confirm that those who think that they may be affected will receive the same benefits in the form of disability pension as equivalent service men wounded in the course of action or made ill by their service? Under the seven-year rule, the burden of proof of a causal connection between the illness and the service man's involvement in action—except, I understand, in the case of Gulf war syndrome—changes from the MOD to the service man affected after seven years. Will he also confirm that until the science is clearer, the seven-year rule will not apply in the case of alleged depleted uranium poisoning?

Mr. Spellar: I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that. As I said in my statement, part of the assessment that we are undertaking involves the latency of possible impacts and the time scale within which leukaemia may be expected to appear from any possible causation. From studies of the various related groups who were affected by radioactive dust, that does not seem to increase the incidence of leukaemia, but we are conducting further work in that regard, and we are mindful of the delays that can take place. I will look into the detail of the provisions and write to the hon. Gentleman.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Eric Joyce Esq., for Falkirk, West.

Points of Order

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a point of order of which I have given you some advance notice. As you will know, it relates to the conduct of yesterday's first Programming Sub-Committee of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. Specifically, a number of my hon. Friends and I, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), were gravely concerned to discover two facts at that meeting yesterday. I recognise that it might not be possible to give an immediate ruling, but some guidance would be appreciated.
The first fact is that we were told that the meeting was along the lines of a Select Committee, with no verbatim account of the meeting's proceedings or even a set of minutes, although it was not clear that there was any evidence in the Sessional Orders that it was to be constituted as a Select Committee and there was no resolution of the House to that effect.
Secondly, we were told that, on the principle of the model of a Select Committee meeting without a witness, the proceedings were to be held in private, although, again, there was no evidence as to why that is so.
Furthermore, we were very concerned because a Minister, a shadow Minister and two Whips were on the Sub-Committee. That did not seem coincidental and bore no resemblance to a Select Committee, but rather to a Standing Committee of which the Programming Sub-Committee was a sub-set.
Given that the Sessional Orders, part I, section C (3), specify that all members of the Sub-Committee should be members of the Bill Committee, it is clear that there is no resemblance whatever to a Select Committee. I and my hon. Friends should much appreciate guidance, on the

basis of that arrangement, on when and where and under whose authority it was approved, and whether it is up for consideration in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me some notice of the matter. Perhaps I can look into his point relating to membership. On his other points, it is the practice of the House that proceedings of Business Sub-Committees under Standing Order No. 120 are analogous to those of a Select Committee. While deliberating, therefore, Business Sub-Committees sit in private. Programming Sub-Committees under the Sessional Order should, in logic, follow the same rules as their task is similar.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Another matter that arises concerns the motion offered to such a Programming Sub-Committee by the Government and any opportunity, or lack of it, by other members of the Sub-Committee to submit amendments. Could you give some consideration to whether ground rules should be laid down as to the notice given of such a resolution and, therefore, the opportunity given for hon. Members properly to submit amendments, preferably in writing, so that the Sub-Committee can give the matter proper consideration? That seems so far not to have been the case.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to think about that matter.

BILL PRESENTED

CAPITAL ALLOWANCES

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson, presented a Bill to restate, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 10].

Orders of the Day — Armed Forces Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is principally concerned with the statutory framework for the system of discipline in the armed forces. That system of discipline is an essential ingredient of operational effectiveness. For everyone in the armed forces, that is axiomatic.
In civil society, the vital importance of discipline is perhaps not so readily understood. However, while even in the Ministry of Defence Machiavelli is not everyone's role model, we would do well to heed his observation that
Good order and discipline in any army are to be more depended upon than courage alone.
We take it for granted in this country that our forces are disciplined. We also take their excellence for granted. Those two statements are intimately and inextricably linked. It is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the disciplinary framework remains fixed for the vital purpose of contributing to that excellence.
The statutory bases for discipline in the armed forces are the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957—the service discipline Acts. Those have to be renewed every five years; otherwise they would expire. The single most important purpose of the Armed Forces Bill is to effect that renewal.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have often suspected that Machiavelli may be at work in the Ministry of Defence, but I accept the Minister's personal assurance that that is not so. However, what progress has been made in the Ministry on the question of combining the three service discipline Acts in a single Act? The increase in joint operations must surely make it desirable that there should be one code of discipline covering all three armed services.

Mr. Spellar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is suffering from premature intervention. I shall deal with his question a little later.
The service discipline Acts were last renewed by the Armed Forces Act 1996, and are due to expire at the end of the year—hence the need to introduce the Bill in the current parliamentary Session. When passed into law, the Bill will give the Acts a further five-year lease of life. If that was all the Bill was seeking to achieve, it would not, of course, run to 41 clauses. However, like previous five-yearly armed forces Bills, this Bill proposes a number of changes to the existing legislation, mostly to the service discipline Acts, which need to be kept up to date. That is not out of modishness—something to which service discipline should never be susceptible—but for a variety of sound reasons.
Introducing a Bill every five years and generally having little expectation of any other legislative opportunity in between is a useful discipline, albeit of a different kind, for the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. It spurs

us to review our procedures which, of course, can lead to the conclusion that some adjustments may be necessary, not for their own sake but to make the system work better. Although the services are operating an essentially separate justice system, we need to keep an eye on developments in the civilian system, but not so that we  then slavishly copy it. There will necessarily remain key differences in the two systems, given their different purposes.
However, for many procedures relating to the investigation, trial and punishment of offences, it is right that we should aim to keep in step with developments in the civilian system, since many of them are designed to secure the proper balance between the rights and duties of the prosecution and the accused, and it is appropriate that, when possible and relevant, those should be reflected in the armed forces' procedures. It has been the policy of successive Administrations that that should be so.
Much of the Bill is therefore about bringing service procedures more closely into line with those in the civilian system. I shall now describe the main proposals in the Bill, but I hope the House will understand that time will not allow me to cover them all. We propose that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee, as is normal with these five-yearly Bills, and I am confident that the detail of the Bill will then receive the customary close attention.
Clause 1 allows the life of the service discipline Acts to be extended for a further five years, until the end of 2006. As now, that will be subject to annual renewal in the intervening period by the affirmative continuation orders debated in both Houses. The present legislation serves the armed forces well. It works, but it can still be improved. One area where we believe that to be the case relates to the administration of discipline in the growing joint service environment, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) alluded. That area needs a new legislative framework, which is why the Government have made clear their commitment to moving from the three present Acts to a single piece of discipline legislation.
We aim to have the necessary legislation ready for introduction as part of the five-yearly Bill that we expect to be introduced in the 2005–06 Session. I realise that that will cause some understandable disappointment. However, it should be recognised that it will be no small task to produce a new Act covering the needs of all three services. Indeed, the strategic defence review White Paper, which proposed the tri-service Act, stated that it
would be a substantial and complex undertaking which will take some years to complete.
It was recognised from the outset that that could not be achieved in time for the current quinquennial Bill.

Mr. Campbell: I thank the Minister for giving way, especially as he has now caught up with my intervention. He will be aware that in relation to the Bill to ratify the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, the relevant Department adopted the procedure of issuing a draft Bill and inviting consultation. Will he consider adopting the same approach to the Bill which he has just outlined?

Mr. Spellar: As I recall, similar proposals concerning legislation were made by the Select Committee on Defence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's


suggestion is worth examining. My only hesitation and reservation concerns the time scale and how long it would take to pull together such a draft Bill. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a worthwhile point, which we shall certainly consider.
In the meantime, we need to ensure that the existing body of legislation is effective. That is what the remainder of the Bill seeks to achieve. The more serious offences under the service discipline Acts are investigated by the service police, who generally operate in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, much as the civilian police do. Indeed, some provisions in PACE, such as those dealing with finger printing, already apply to the service police. However, in particular areas the service police act on the basis of commanding officers' inherent powers, rather than on any statutory basis, when they are investigating offences. We consider that the basis on which the service police exercise those functions needs to be clarified by being put on a statutory footing. That will enable those who are subject to the powers to have a clear understanding of the scopes and limits of police powers. That is dealt with in clauses 2 to 16.
Clause 2 defines the circumstances in which a member of the service police may stop and search somebody, subject to service law, or stop and search service and certain other vehicles. Those circumstances apply where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a search will reveal items such as stolen goods or controlled drugs. Service police are not ubiquitous, and it may sometimes be necessary for a search to be undertaken when they are not available. Clause 4 therefore provides residual powers for commanding officers to exercise the powers described in clause 2 through members of the armed forces who are not service policemen, but only where the timely assistance of the police cannot be secured.
Inevitably, the investigation of an offence may call for the searching of someone's living accommodation. Clause 5 requires a service policeman to apply for a warrant from a judicial officer if he needs to search the home or living accommodation of service personnel in the course of an investigation into a serious offence. Clause 7 provides a residual power for a commanding officer to authorise the conducting of such a search by members of the armed forces who are not service policemen or by service police without a warrant. The commanding officer will be able to use the power only if using the service police or obtaining a warrant is not practicable.
As under PACE, the power to search is limited to certain serious offences. Clause 8 makes the exercise of the commanding officer's powers to authorise a search subject to retrospective review by a judicial officer if anything has been seized during the search.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I should like to ask a question about that point, as I see that I have not been lucky enough to catch the selector's eye for the Select Committee that will consider the Bill. The retrospective review applies only when property is seized, but should it not apply in all circumstances? What are the arguments that made the Minister reach his conclusion on that point?

Mr. Spellar: The matter should be considered in the context of each of the clauses. As I said, that context is

the seeking of stolen goods or controlled drugs, which raises the issue of whether anything has been seized during a search. The power of reference to a judicial officer is appropriate and qualifies the powers given to the commanding officer to move beyond the usual provisions, under which the service police would apply for a judicial warrant. The provisions create flexibility, but also require the reference back to a judicial officer, which ensures compliance.

Mr. Blunt: I apologise for not having made myself completely clear. The search can be hurtful and demeaning to the person under investigation. Even if no seizure is made, there may be an impression that a military officer is exceeding his authority in the peculiar circumstances in which he must make his judgments. Why should not review also occur in such circumstances, even when no seizure is made?

Mr. Spellar: That comes back to the further qualification: the commanding officer can use the power only if using the service police or obtaining a warrant is not practicable. The power to search is limited by the Bill, as it is by PACE, to certain serious offences. Of course, I shall consider the matter in further detail and write to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that the Conservative business managers did not see fit to bless the Select Committee with his presence.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the measure apply to living accommodation within the barracks as well as to residential accommodation such as a quarter? How will it impact on those blessed things that I remember and which I fear might still occur—room inspections?

Mr. Spellar: That is an entirely different issue. We are discussing the exercise of search functions. We are not talking about inspections for dust or about straightening beds; we are talking about searches for stolen goods or controlled substances, and the commanding officer's powers—and his accountability in exercising them—when service police are not available, or when a warrant cannot be obtained.
I would expect hon. Members to welcome this provision, because notwithstanding the wide variety of circumstances in which the services operate, it maintains the flexibility that allows a commanding officer to exercise his powers and to do so with accountability. The measure deals with concerns that have been expressed, and accords with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; but it also deals with specific circumstances in military life. As I said, I would expect that to be welcomed by hon. Members whose sometimes justifiable criticisms rest on the need to take such particular and varied circumstances into account.

Mr. Robathan: rose—

Mr. Spellar: May I make some progress? There are a number of other clauses to discuss. The hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene later.
Clause 9 defines the powers to enter premises without a warrant for the purpose of effecting an arrest. They may generally be exercised only by a member of the service police, but if the arrest is in respect of a serious offence and if the delay in waiting for a policeman is likely to


frustrate the purpose of the entry, the commanding officer may authorise another member of the armed forces to enter the premises concerned.
Clause 10 deals with the powers of search exercisable following arrest. Those powers reflect the fact that the service discipline Acts give powers of arrest to service personnel generally, not just to service police. Under clause 10, an arrested person may be searched if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he may be a danger to himself or others. The clause also provides for search for evidence, or for things that may aid an escape. However, the powers will generally be exercisable only by service policemen, unless one is unlikely to be available in time.
The principles underlying the proposals in clauses 2 to 16 are clear. They provide a sound basis for an important area of service police activity, modelled on civilian procedures. They define the circumstances in which police powers may be exercised, making them subject to judicial supervision where appropriate. As I stressed earlier, however, the principles also recognise the realities of service life. An investigation should not be paralysed because the assistance of a service policeman cannot be secured in time. Instead, there is a clear framework within which the commanding officer will he able to authorise action.

Mr. Robathan: Contrary to what the Minister obviously expects, I am not criticising him, for a change.
Will the commanding officer, or officers acting on his behalf, have access to living accommodation in barracks, or in quasi-operational circumstances such as those operating in Northern Ireland? It is important to determine now whether the commanding officer—company commander, platoon commander or officer commanding a unit—will have access to such accommodation during the normal run of things, and whether it will be possible to search it with the commanding officer's authority.

Mr. Spellar: That will depend on the availability of service policemen to undertake their proper role, and their ability to obtain warrants within an appropriate time scale. If that is not possible—which is unlikely, in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman—the commandant can instruct other personnel. It matches the provisions under PACE, but at the same time provides the necessary flexibility for a commanding officer to be able to undertake the role.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Spellar: These are points that hon. Members should draw to the attention of their Committee colleagues; otherwise, we will not be able to make sufficient progress during this debate.
Part III makes a number of proposals for the reform of the procedures for the trial and punishment of offences under the service discipline Acts. Clause 17 will make it possible to deal summarily with relatively minor offences committed by naval officers. Essentially, that will bring the Royal Navy into line with the other two services.
At present, within the services, only officers may sit as court martial members. In examining the previous Armed Forces Bill, the Select Committee considered whether

other ranks should be eligible, without reaching any firm conclusions. The previous Administration subsequently established a review of the issue.
Following that, in 1998, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), announced that we wished courts martial to benefit from the wisdom and experience of warrant officers. Clause 19 therefore proposes changes to the legislation to allow warrant officers to sit as court martial members, in cases where the accused is of lower rank.
Clause 20 provides a power to extend membership of the summary appeal courts to warrant officers. That is in recognition of views expressed by Opposition Members during the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 in the previous Session.

Mr. Peter Viggers: When the Bill reaches Committee, will the Minister seek to justify the fact that a warrant officer, or an officer in the Navy of the rank of lieutenant or above, can sit as a member of a court martial, but a warrant officer who is promoted to sub-lieutenant cannot? Will he seek to defend that in Committee?

Mr. Spellar: I am certain that, whatever change and progress one makes, it throws up further anomalies that need to be examined. It might therefore be appropriate to look at that matter. I recall that the hon. Gentleman was the Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the previous Armed Forces Bill. I hope that he welcomes the fact that we are acting on that Committee's recommendations. We can certainly examine the matter when the current Bill is considered by the Committee, but there has been welcome progress in implementing the Committee's wishes and, I believe, those of the House.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Why has my hon. Friend not had a more radical look at the court martial system, particularly for serious offences? What has he got against having the equivalent of a jury trial for those serious offences, moving away from other service men considering those cases?

Mr. Spellar: It is simply because I am not a radical sort of fellow.
We do not believe that it would be appropriate to make warrant officers members of the summary appeal courts immediately. We want first to obtain experience, both of the new courts in operation and of warrant officers as court martial members, before taking a view in due course on whether they should be eligible to sit on the new courts.
The remainder of part III proposes adjustments to bring trial procedures into line with those in civilian courts. A number of the measures are intended to assist the service courts to operate more effectively. Others aim to help to get the right balance between the prosecution and the accused and between the wrongdoer and the community.
Clause 21 will enable the Attorney-General to invite the courts martial appeal court to review a sentence that has been passed by a court martial, if he considers that the sentence is unduly lenient. That reflects a similar power in relation to sentences in the civilian court.
Also on sentencing, it has always been the intention that courts martial should be subject to the same requirement as civilian courts to impose mandatory, or minimum, sentences in certain circumstances: where they are dealing with an offender who has previously been convicted of specified serious offences and is being sentenced for a further similar offence. Clause 22 puts the service courts on the same footing as the civilian courts in that regard.
The conduct of courts martial in hearing a case can be impeded if the defence seeks judicial review of a decision of the court during the trial. Where that happens, the trial must stop until the High Court has dealt with the application for judicial review. That can mean a long delay.
Where cases are tried on indictment in the Crown court there is no right to seek judicial review. If the defence is unhappy with any aspect of the way in which the trial has been conducted, it has the right of appeal. Similarly, there can be appeal from the decisions of a court martial. Where appeal is possible, there is no need also to have access to judicial review. Clause 23, therefore, brings courts martial into line with the Crown court by removing trial proceedings from the scope of judicial review, which, I am sure it will be agreed, is a welcome development.
Witnesses who fail to attend courts martial can delay or frustrate the administration of justice. At present, there are no effective means of ensuring the attendance of civilian witnesses. Clause 25 seeks to remedy that by giving judicial officers or judge advocates powers to order the arrest of witnesses who there is good reason to believe will fail to attend proceedings, or who actually fail to do so.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Clause 21 confers on the Attorney-General the power to review what are considered to be lenient sentences. Why does the Minister feel that it is necessary to invoke the Attorney-General, who is essentially responsible for administering the civilian courts? Would he consider that a military legal personality should be the authority responsible for deciding whether to refer to court martial appeal a sentence that is perceived to be over-lenient?
It is a great pleasure to see the Minister here today and he is doing extremely well. However, I wonder whether, for this most important measure in five years, the Secretary of State should be here to deal with the points with which, as I have said, the Minister is dealing extremely well.

Mr. Spellar: It is traditional for the Minister for the Armed Forces to deal with this legislation. As has been made clear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having important discussions with one of our friendly powers. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) finds that amusing. However, I fully understand that, given his perspective, talking to foreigners is a highly suspect activity. We think it important to talk to our friends and allies.
The appropriate answer to the intervention is that the Attorney-General, with considerable experience of dealing with such cases, is the appropriate legal office to seek such a review. After all, in many cases the Attorney-General is not the prosecuting authority in the

civilian courts, but provides a necessary position within Government to intervene in the public interest. That reads across effectively to the service provision. We have no difficulty with that and believe that it is a significant change that will bolster good order and discipline in the armed forces.
Civilian courts have powers to award costs against parties in a criminal case, or against their legal representatives, where the court considers that the case has been conducted in a way that results in the other side incurring unnecessary expenditure. There are no corresponding powers available to service courts and there is now some evidence that they are needed. This would, for example, be to discourage lawyers unreasonably requesting the attendance at trials of witnesses whom they have no cause to suppose will be able to give relevant evidence. Clauses 26, 27 and 28 therefore give appropriate powers to service courts, similar to those available to the civilian courts.
Finally in part III, I wish to mention clause 30. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 introduced a system of bail, similar to the civilian system, but which deals purely with custody prior to or during service trials. There is, however, no compelling reason why the services should continue to differ from the civilian system with regard to bail pending appeal. Clause 30 will enable procedures to be introduced, similar to the civilian system, allowing persons convicted by a service court to apply for bail pending the outcome of an appeal against conviction or sentence.
Before I describe part IV, I should like to deal with clause 33. That is because it ties in with much of what this Bill is seeking to achieve in bringing service procedures into line with relevant civilian ones.
Civilian criminal justice procedures are developing all the time, and we need to ensure that we respond. There are a number of ways in which we can achieve this. One way is to ensure that criminal justice legislation extends to the services from the outset. That occurs extensively, and sometimes the legislation immediately applies to the armed forces. Other Acts—such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—provide powers allowing certain of their provisions to be extended to the armed forces by secondary legislation. In that case, the power is generally couched in terms that the provisions may be modified to cater for the special requirements of the services.
However, instances still arise where civilian procedures are altered, but even though we want to follow suit, we have no powers to do so. In such cases, we have to wait for the next five-yearly Bill. Clause 33 provides a means for enabling us to respond in a more timely manner. It will allow the Secretary of State to use statutory instruments to apply future changes in civilian criminal justice legislation to the services. That will be on the basis of making equivalent provision, with necessary modifications.
The new power will provide flexibility. The House will want that to be used sensibly, but it is important to bear it in mind that the provisions we shall be seeking to extend to the services will already have been scrutinised by Parliament. Clause 33 provides a valuable tool to further the theme of much of this Bill, which is about keeping in step with relevant changes in civilian procedures.
Part IV deals with the Ministry of Defence police. This is a civilian police force, some 3,500 strong, within the Ministry of Defence. Its purpose is to provide effective policing of the defence estate and community. The force should not be confused with the service police, whom we were considering earlier. I am sure that hon. Members present for this debate would not do so.
MDP officers possess constabulary powers, and their training is very similar to that of Home Department police officers. The force is subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Its officers provide for the security of a range of defence assets, including at locations where there is a likelihood of contact with the public or civilian employees.
The jurisdiction of the MDP is defined in the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. The overall effect of that Act is to give the force a jurisdiction to police defence land, property and personnel within the United Kingdom. The MDP is also able to operate on land in the vicinity of defence land, where a local force has asked for assistance.
The image of the MDP as an essentially static force based at defence establishments no longer holds true. The force increasingly operates mobile patrols to get from one defence establishment to another. That inevitably brings MDP officers into greater contact with the public than before.

Mr. David Heath: The Minister is about to explain the provisions of this part of the Bill, but will he say at whose behest the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police is being extended? Has it been requested by that police force itself, by territorial police forces, by the Ministry of Defence or by the Home Office?

Mr. Spellar: The change has been proposed very much at the instigation of the Ministry of Defence police and the Defence Police Federation. Increasingly, as I shall describe, members of that force find themselves in situations in which they come into contact with the public. They are seen to wear the uniform of a policeman, but they have no more powers than the average citizen. It is to remedy that defect, and others, that we are introducing the Bill. That course of action seems appropriate and right.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome the provisions of clause 31, and I have been trying to secure similar changes for the other non-Home Office police forces, such as British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. However, the explanatory notes make it clear that the powers provided in the clause for a Ministry of Defence police officer to act in extremis—in London, for example, that necessity might arise in the absence of a Metropolitan police officer, or when it was necessary to go to the aid of such an officer—can be exercised only if there is the potential to
prevent or minimise personal injury,
or in response to
the use or threat of violence.
The power does not appear to extend to circumstances in which, for example, a possible burglary is witnessed. That is an anomaly: I believe that the in extremis powers should be available when no Home Office police officer is available.
My second point is that clause 32 also mentions land dealt with by the Atomic Energy Authority police and by the British Transport police, but does not mention the Royal Parks constabulary. The Royal Parks constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police have an interface close to this building, and circumstances such as those covered by clause 31 can often arise in such areas. Could that omission be looked into?

Mr. Spellar: That question would have to be addressed to another Department. The Royal Parks constabulary comes under a separate institution, not the Ministry of Defence, although I often find that the Ministry has responsibilities that I had not previously understood it to have. My hon. Friend must understand that we are dealing with an anomaly, but we must be equally sensitive to the considerations of the county police forces. This is an appropriate measure to address the problems that we have identified, while maintaining the supremacy of the county forces. I shall certainly draw his comments on some of the other forces to the attention of the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Mackinlay: I hope that I am not labouring the point, but looking at the body language of the Ministers, I rather thought that they agreed with me. Others may be frustrating this idea.
If a Royal Parks constabulary officer in St. James's park were faced with a crime involving violence, clause 31 would not confer any more powers of arrest or intervention on a Ministry of Defence police officer in the circumstances than I would have as a civilian. That is ludicrous. The point of clause 31 is to remedy such anomalies, and does so in relation to the British Transport police. An officer of the Ministry of Defence police will be able to go into Westminster tube station to support an officer of the British Transport police when there is the potential for violence, but he will not be able to do so in St. James's park. I suspect that the Home Office, or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, is being awkward in this matter.

Mr. Spellar: This matter will obviously be drawn to the attention of the Committee, which will give it further consideration.
The greater contact between MDP officers and the public has consequences for expectations of how members of the force will act. If a member of the public is the victim of an assault, he or she may expect a passing police officer in uniform to assist. It is of no concern to the victim whether the police officer belongs to the MDP or the local constabulary.
However, the present law does not allow an MDP officer to exercise constabulary powers when intervening in these circumstances, except near defence land. He would have the same standing in relation to the incident as any other citizen, as I said earlier. That is not satisfactory, as it can inhibit the officer from assisting effectively because he knows that his actions may subsequently be challenged.
The Bill seeks to remedy that. Clauses 31 and 32, and schedule 5, make a number of changes to the jurisdiction of the MDP. A key change will enable MDP officers to act in an emergency in cases involving violence, the threat of violence or a risk of death or injury. This addition to individual MDP officers' powers is tightly circumscribed


to cases in which it is clear that the timely assistance of a Home Department police officer will not be available. The Bill also broadens the ability of individual officers to respond to requests for assistance from local police officers. At present, this is limited to the vicinity of defence land.
These proposals will enable individual MDP officers to make a more effective contribution to policing the community. Other proposals in the Bill will make it easier for the force as a whole to co-operate with Home Department forces. They will allow the MDP to enter into standing arrangements if a local police force requests assistance in the longer-term policing of land in the vicinity of defence land.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have corresponded with the Ministry of Defence for a long time about the suggestion that the MDP be replaced in certain establishments by private security people. I am slightly confused that we seem to be widening the MDP's powers while suggesting that some jobs that it undertakes could be taken over by private security firms. Am I wrong in my assumptions?

Mr. Spellar: I think that my hon. Friend is partly wrong. In a number of places where static guarding is carried out, the Ministry of Defence police force is being replaced by the Military Provost Guard Service, which is not a private security company but an integral part of the Ministry of Defence. The move from static guarding, in which Ministry of Defence police has played a considerable role, towards a more active policing role brings the force more into contact with the public. So the changes that my hon. Friend describes are part of the basis for the changes that we propose in the Bill.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Have any discussions taken place about the merger of the Ministry of Defence police and the UK energy police force, as their roles overlap in certain circumstances? Has such a merger been considered in terms of new powers?

Mr. Spellar: That is not in the Bill and not currently under consideration.
The Bill will also allow the force to meet requests for the provision of personnel or other resources to assist other police forces anywhere in the country and to meet special demands on their resources. Help given during the recent floods or a search for a missing person are examples of such provision.
There will be two key provisos in relation to the provision of MDP assistance of this latter sort. First, such assistance will quite rightly be triggered only if there is a request from the relevant chief constable. Secondly, we intend that it should be found from within the force's own resources. There will be no additional resources for the MDP simply to enable the force to help Home Department constabularies.
There are other proposals relating to the MDP which there is insufficient time to cover today. I can assure the House, however, that there is no intention to duplicate the role of the Home Department forces or to turn the MDP

into a general police force. It will continue to police the defence estate and the defence community. The extensions that I have described are tightly circumscribed. They are the minimum, in our view, to enable the force to operate effectively and collaborate with Home Department forces in the interests of joined-up policing.
There is one final proposal in the Bill that I wish to cover in some detail. It is in clauses 34 and 35, which deal with testing for alcohol and drugs.
It goes without saying that there is no room for the abuse of controlled drugs in service life. The armed forces' drug testing programmes, conducted on a random basis, have proved to be a useful tool in deterring and combating their use.
There is no equivalent provision to allow testing for alcohol. The Services have extensive education programmes designed to promote a responsible attitude towards alcohol. However, it would not be appropriate to test for alcohol on a random basis, given that it does not have the same unlawful status as controlled drugs. Instead, the Bill seeks a power to enable the armed forces to test for alcohol or drugs in certain specified circumstances, such as when an incident has caused death, serious injury or serious damage, or could have done so. If it is considered that persons subject to service law may have contributed to the incident, they may be required to provide breath or urine samples to allow testing for alcohol or drugs. It will be an offence to refuse.
The results of such tests will be used to assist in establishing the cause of the incident and therefore to inform a subsequent board of inquiry. The test results will be excluded from use against anyone in a subsequent service prosecution to ensure the fullest co-operation of all those called upon to participate in a test and, by analogy, with evidence given at other boards of inquiry. However, they could be used as evidence in civil proceedings, or as a basis for any subsequent service administrative action aimed at preventing an individual from exposing himself or others to similar risks in future.
The underlying intention of the provision is, of course, to add to the range of measures to safeguard individuals involved in potentially hazardous duties and to discourage the inappropriate consumption of alcohol or the use of controlled drugs.
The Bill also includes a miscellany of minor changes to the legislation affecting the armed forces, intended to rectify anomalies and so on.

Mr. Mackinlay: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether, with regard to the miscellaneous provisions under part V, there has been an approach from the New Zealand House of Representatives or the New Zealand Government to use this measure to regularise the Act of Parliament that they passed in relation to British empire forces, over which only this Parliament can have jurisdiction? My hon. Friend will be aware that, to its eternal credit, the New Zealand Parliament unilaterally, but unconstitutionally, passed an Act of Parliament that could only be passed here to grant pardons to people in the Otago regiment who were executed in world war one. They were not New Zealand soldiers as such, but soldiers in the British empire forces over which, constitutionally, only this place has jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the New Zealand


Parliament passed that Act, which is to its credit, has there been a request for the position to be regularised using this measure? If not, why not?

Mr. Spellar: I am not aware of any such approach.
Returning to schedule 7, I shall not dwell on the anomalies that the Bill is intended to rectify today, except to mention one. At present, of the children of members of the armed forces, only daughters are eligible to be married in service chapels. The Bill proposes that sons and stepchildren should also be eligible. I am sure that the House will welcome that modest liberalising measure.
Much of the Bill is technical and procedural. That does not lessen its importance to the services. The House and the Select Committee will give it the attention that it deserves.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the excellence of this country's armed forces. I do not want to conclude without paying tribute to them in more explicit terms. Indeed, I am sure that all hon. Members will want to join me in acknowledging the part that our armed forces play in maintaining Britain's place and reputation on the international stage. Around the world, they have shown consistently that they can make a real and positive difference to people's lives. That is because our forces as institutions, and the people who serve in them, are second to none. The Bill continues to maintain their effectiveness. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert Key: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Armed Forces Bill, which neither consolidates the three existing Service Discipline Acts nor introduces a single tri-service Act; which fails to address the challenge to military combat effectiveness from the gathering tide of legislation following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law; which omits legal clarification of employment in the services of young people under the age of 18; which fails to provide a statutory basis for equality of access by servicemen and women to free and impartial tribunals and resources to achieve that; and which encourages a further creeping advance of litigation that will breed a cautious group of military leaders who may step back from courageous decisions for fear of being pursued through the courts.
Much of this quinquennial Bill will be uncontroversial. Part I—the continuance of the services Acts—is a duty that the House must address for the sake of the good order and discipline of Her Majesty's forces. Part II, which deals with powers of entry, search and seizure, will demand close scrutiny, as will part III, on the trial and punishment of offences under the services discipline Acts.
Part IV would extend the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police. We broadly welcome that, although we will want to examine in depth the interface between the MOD, Home Office and military police and how the proposals will affect those relationships. The alignment of the forces discipline procedures with those of Home Department police forces has taken a long time to achieve. We will need to ensure that the procedures will be satisfactory.
Part V is likely to give us the most difficulty. In it, the consent of the House is sought to give the Secretary of State for Defence power to make orders applying changes

in civilian criminal justice legislation to the armed forces. As the explanatory notes so helpfully provided by the Ministry of Defence put it:
This clause provides a general order-making power which would enable the Secretary of State to make for the armed forces provisions equivalent to those contained in any future civilian criminal justice legislation or any existing legislation that it amends.
Disarmingly, the note goes on to explain:
The power may be exercised so far as is desired, i.e. the entire civilian legislation does not have to be adopted. Modifications or any incidental, consequential or transitional provisions which the Secretary of State thinks fit may be made.
That is exactly the sort of thing at which hon. Members prick up their ears, and we shall be doing more than that in Committee. We have considerable doubts about the wisdom of the House giving general enabling powers to any Secretary of State. That part of the Bill will no doubt take some time in Committee.
Those of us who served on the Committee on the previous quinquennial Bill, military lawyers and other defence buffs may have been under the impression that that was the whole purpose of the five-yearly armed forces Bill—and the Minister alluded to this. When civilian and military laws have got significantly out of kilter, the House redresses the balance through primary legislation. Sometimes the Secretary of State can use existing powers to remedy imbalances, which inevitably occur from time to time. However, clause 33 appears to change the whole process so that, rather than the House deciding every five years the extent to which military law and civilian law concur, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, change military law by order to bring it into line with civilian law. I can think of circumstances where that might be sensible and beneficial; I can think of others where the reverse is the case. We will need to tease out Ministers' motives in seeking to make that change.
Clause 33 appears to encapsulate much of what the Chief of the Defence Staff flagged up in his presentation to the Royal United Services Institute last December. He ended that speech by warning that if we hamstring our fighting services with inadequate funding, poor equipment, undermanning and inappropriate legislation, we will create a generation of sailors, soldiers and airmen who are little more than a gendarmerie. He said:
All symbolism and no substance. They will certainly not be made of the stuff that the British forces are today and what our country expects them to be like.
Some people believe that the membership of the armed forces should reflect the general composition of our nation's population. Her Majesty's forces should most certainly be open to all who wish to serve their Queen and country. We believe that members of the armed forces are different, and should be different, from most civilians. That is exactly what the Chief of the Defence Staff said, too. He said in his RUSI speech that Defence Ministers understand the position of the military and have been robust in their defence of the case during the recent European debate on ending employment discrimination on grounds of age and disability. If that is what Defence Ministers really believe in the face of their colleagues, we agree with them—and with the chiefs of staff.
Many people believe that, to ensure that Her Majesty's forces represent a cross-section of society, Ministers should impose changes on the military to ensure that they comply. We disagree. Such decisions should be for the chiefs of staff and the chain of command.
Some people believe that the argument about the emergence of a European defence force is only about north Atlantic power politics; it is not. It is also about the motives, the capability and the military effectiveness of our potential partners in the enterprise.
I note in passing that some hon. Members think we have an exclusive prerogative to express views on those subjects. Apparently, some of those with military experience—particularly if they hold senior ranks and are members of the royal family—should be excluded from commenting, even in private to their friends. I regret very much that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is not present. It had not crossed my mind for a moment that he would not be here, but I understand that he has had to run off to another BBC studio. We should not be surprised that the Liberal Democrats' official spokesman on foreign affairs and defence who, only last week, joined the Foreign Secretary in saying that our existing political culture is not conducive to consensus-building and that the adversarial approach to debate promotes polarisation of opinion, and who called for constructive discussions, was the same party politician who, just before Christmas, told the Prince of Wales "to mind his own bloody business" when he dared discuss defence issues at a private dinner party, the conversation at which was subsequently leaked.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I am sure that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) had been aware that the hon. Gentleman would mention him in such detail during his opening remarks he would have ensured that he was here. In his defence—although he needs none from me—it is a constitutional point that the Prince of Wales of any day should not become involved in discussing party politics. I speak as a "friend" of His Royal Highness—[Interruption]—but the way in which His Royal Highness became involved was wrong.

Mr. Key: I need not pass any comment on that intervention. I am very surprised. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife would need no defence from anyone, and he would have thoroughly enjoyed this little exchange if he had been present, but the hon. Gentleman's comment really does take the biscuit. Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one of those supernumerary Scottish Members of Parliament who have more time on their hands, we should not be surprised that he has become the darling of the BBC and the favourite BBC all-purpose defence rent-a-quote. We had better move on swiftly before anyone else owns up to being a friend of His Royal Highness.
If nations do not have a common purpose in defence, they will not discuss the same issues in the same way; they will not react to the same crises in the same way; and they will not be able to satisfy the Petersberg tasks coherently—let alone high-intensity warfare.
Take the issue of women in the front line. We are frequently told that there is no problem with deploying them there and that the Israelis adopted that approach years ago. Advocates of the Israeli example do not seem to have heard that the Israelis also abandoned it years ago, because it reduced combat effectiveness and simply did not work.
Advocates of women in the front line say that, if our strongest partner, the United States, can deploy them, so can we. They fail to recognise that, with the exception of the marine corps, which continues to thrive and attract massive numbers of recruits, the American military has suffered severe setbacks in its military effectiveness and deployability—an issue that must be addressed by the incoming Bush Administration.
Nearer to home, all eyes are on Germany. Only last week, on 3 January The Times reported from Berlin:
Germany's first contingent of 240 female fighting troops signed up yesterday for the Army under strict orders that they remove their nose rings and stay chaste in barracks …
Frederick the Great must be spinning in his sarcophagus," one officer said, referring to the Prussian leader who hand-picked his strapping male grenadiers.
We know that, last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that the German Government must provide equal opportunities for women in their forces. The Times adds:
Special courses on "gender training" have been set up to instruct and reassure male non-commissioned officers how to deal with women under their command. The questions raised … show how deep is the unease. Can I order a woman soldier to cut her hair? What jewellery is acceptable? Should a section commander intervene if two members of his unit fall in love? What happens if the commander himself falls in love? How to prevent sexual harassment, or distinguish between genuine and false claims of harassment? What shall I do if a woman cries?
A tank commander has written several rules which, according to the report, include:
no sex in barracks, before, during or after duty. Anyone who transgresses will be punished. Knocking on doors … is now compulsory.
The report points out:
Every fifth German soldier, questioned by sociologists, said he was afraid that a woman would end up taking his job. The key, say German officers, is to provide the right mixture at platoon and company level. According to a US Army analyst, if there are only 20 per cent. women in a mixed unit, the men tend to be over-protective, reducing fighting competence. If there are more than 50 per cent. women in a unit, the men tend to slacken and are difficult to command.
The Times also reported that the physical health and mental aptitude of women recruits were good. It reports Colonel Volker Spangenberg as saying:
Almost all are pretty robust. They also ask questions more readily than men and they have a much clearer idea as to what they want from the army.
However, does the army have a clear idea of what it wants from the women?

Mr. Mackinlay: To which clause of the Bill is the hon. Gentleman directing his remarks?

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long to find out.
The really fundamental problem is that, under the German constitution, the Germany military—undoubtedly a good NATO partner and a good partner in peacekeeping it has turned out to be—does not have a front-line offensive role. Its members are not trained for high-intensity warfare, which must remain the first priority for British forces. The sort of questions reported to be occupying the mind of the German military are only a small part of the story.
There is a mass of other evidence. I shall describe three examples that were related to me only last week by a military man of impeccable credentials whose words I have no reason to doubt. The first concerned a young officer commanding a United Nations patrol in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In their blue berets, the members of the patrol came to an unexpected roadblock manned by heavily armed rebels who heavily outnumbered the small British contingent. The commanding officer asked the interpreter what the rebels were discussing. He was told that they had identified a pretty British corporal and were deciding how they would extract her from the group and abduct her for their pleasure. The commanding officer had to decide whether to allow the rebels to take away the corporal unhindered; to call up assistance that might arrive too late; or to commence a fire fight that would almost certainly result in deaths on both sides. In the event, he persuaded the rebels to move on.
The commanding officer said that the incident had changed his whole attitude. He had been a pretty liberal-minded officer, ready to accept change. This incident made him realise that women in the front line of the infantry was an altogether different matter. The crisis would not have arisen if the woman had not been there. It had nothing to do with the woman's ability to do her job, and her undoubted success was rewarded by promotion. It was not even a matter of the reaction of her fellow British soldiers. It was a question of how the modern fighting force of a liberal democracy could handle personal confrontation with illiberal, undemocratic armed forces.
A second officer explained how he had been with the Royal Navy on a resupply-at-sea exercise in a British frigate in a force 6 sea. When the frigate came alongside the United States supply ship in the Atlantic, the pitch and roll were substantial. The visiting officer and the captain were on the bridge and observed the female rating on the bow of the frigate as she tried to pull across the very heavy wet rope. She was physically unable to do it. Her skill and determination were not in question—indeed, she lacerated her hands in the process. All that was lacking was physical strength. The visitor was ordered forward to assist. He subsequently received a stream of invective from the United States sailor, who could not believe that the Brits could be so stupid.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Last April, the Defence Committee visited our forces in the Gulf. We also went to Bahrain, where we saw the commanding officer of the British RAF personnel who provide support on the tankers that refuel the VC10s that enforce the no-fly zones over southern Iraq. That commanding officer was a woman, a pilot and an excellent person. Instead of denigrating the women in our forces, as the hon. Gentleman is doing, is it not time that he praised them?

Mr. Key: I am second to none in my praise for women of all ranks in our armed forces. I was about to say that almost all female and male members of Her Majesty's forces comment on the problem of physical strength and endurance. There is no question of any lack of intellectual equality, motivation, drive or determination. I believe that the majority of women recognise that they would face problems of endurance on the battlefield, which is when the problem of unit cohesiveness will arise. What will be the reaction of the men when their brave female

colleagues cannot physically carry the battlefield load in the front line of the infantry, or when their female comrades are wounded or just utterly exhausted?

Mr. Cohen: What is the hon. Gentleman's reaction when women do carry the physical endurance load? Should they not then be allowed in the front line? As for his example of the woman who could have been kidnapped, is he not aware that the last British soldier who was kidnapped was a man in Sierra Leone? All his arguments against women, which I think he and his party will regret, could be applied to women in the civilian workplace. Such arguments have been shown to be nonsense there, and they are nonsense in the armed forces as well.

Mr. Key: I have great affection and respect for the hon. Gentleman, but there is one fundamental difference between us: I do not believe that it is his place or mine to tell the military how to do their job. That is for the chain of command. Politicians should not tell the military to be politically correct, but that is what the Bill is in danger of doing.
My final example is of a young liaison officer to a tented brigade headquarters in a forest in Germany in the middle of winter. It was terribly cold, and he went unchallenged as he approached the headquarters down a track. Only when he was inside the tent and in the presence of all the senior officers was he challenged by the sentry, who was a female lance-corporal who had been allowed to stay inside the tent because of the cold. That was not a summer picnic at Catterick, but a training exercise for high-intensity warfare.
Senior officers have also made it clear to me that it is no longer possible to say with any credibility that women should either be prohibited from serving in the front line or be allowed to serve only in the rear echelons. The reason is that in this age of asymmetric warfare, weapons of mass destruction, electronic warfare and rapidly developing defence technology, it is no longer possible to define a front line or a rear echelon.
What are we to do about political correctness and the application of human rights legislation to the armed forces? I regret that neither this debate nor the proceedings of the Committee stage which will follow will be informed by the inquiry by the Ministry of Defence into women in the infantry, which will not report until March. In addition, we will not have the benefit of the Defence Committee's inquiry into personnel issues, which will be published soon. Both those reports would have helped us.
The Secretary of State states on the face of the Bill that,
under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998,
his view is that
the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
However, the Bill was printed on 11 December last, and time moves on quickly in matters of political correctness.
During the passage of the Human Rights Bill in 1998, assurances were given by the Lord Chancellor that it was not intended or anticipated that the armed forces would


be affected by it, and that if that appeared likely, special legislation might have to be introduced to correct it. He said:
I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
He went on to attempt to allay the concerns that were expressed about the possible effect on the armed forces. He indicated that he was willing to consider designating military courts as the proper venue for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by armed forces personnel. Most interestingly, he said that
the Secretary of State for Defence takes the view that the Bill raises no issues which are special to the Armed Forces.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 768.]
Just over a year later, the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 was dumped on the armed forces. They were given no blanket or partial derogation from human rights law, despite the Government's promise. The Defence Committee examined that matter in its fourth report on that legislation. It pointed out that some countries have approached difficulties with compliance of their armed forces discipline system with the European convention on human rights by obtaining a reservation on ratifying the convention. France did that on its accession in 1974. Of course, a reservation is available to a state only on accession to the convention. A state can make a derogation after acceding, under article 15, in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
The United Kingdom did not obtain a reservation when we acceded to the ECHR in 1951 because, as their lordships made clear in 1998, at the time no one believed or intended that the convention would apply to the armed services. In its fourth report, the Defence Committee records that it asked the Minister for the Armed Forces to comment on the suggestion that, as the summary justice system was such a vital element of service discipline, an alternative way of dealing with the problem of compliance would be to leave the ECHR and rejoin with a reservation on armed forces discipline.
In paragraph 5 of the report, the Minister told the Committee:
That would be a theoretical possibility but that does not seem to have commended itself to any Government since 1951 … It is a theoretical possibility but the question we would then have to face as the application to join at that time and the great complications that would be involved means it is a fairly far out possibility.
The Committee reported to the House:
This course of action did not appear to have been considered actively, and we would look forward to the Government addressing this possibility during debate on the further stages of the Bill's progress in this House.
The Government did not address that possibility, and they certainly should have done so.
During the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill in another place, my noble Friend Lord Renton made a significant intervention. He said:
I believe I should mention that I am one of the few people still living who attended the European Council when the European Convention on Human Rights was being considered. Indeed, I was closeted with M. Rolin, the Belgian lawyer who represented Dr Mossadek at The Hague in order to agree with him—and eventually it was agreed by all concerned—the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.

I feel obliged to mention that at that time—it was just a few years after the war—I do not believe that members of any party in this country gave a moment's thought to the effect of the convention on military discipline. But now we must consider it. I believe that the Government must review the convention and our acceptance of it in order to ensure that military discipline is maintained.
Lord Renton went on to restate a basic principle. He said:
I believe that especially in time of war—and we should be thinking in terms of the application of this Act in time of war—discipline must if necessary prevail over justice.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 691.]
Our position is clear. On 21 December, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, said:
The Conservative party will change this culture of political correctness in the armed forces. We will exempt them from this nonsense. On arrival back in Government we will take the armed forces out of the Convention. It is no good the Government pretending they are using common sense when they are the ones who have imposed this politically correct culture on the armed forces.

Mr. Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that before the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, Conservative Governments consistently lost cases in the European courts, and as a result it was necessary to change our law to make it proof against those decisions? The hon. Gentleman is proposing that in future we abrogate international agreements, move away from co-operation with other countries and leave ourselves open to further legal judgments in the European courts.

Mr. Key: I am terrified by that prospect.
Yes, the Conservative Government lost cases in the European court. Yes, the Labour Government have lost cases in the European court. It never happened to the French, the Germans or any other nation that had taken out a reservation. That is why we say that we agree with Lord Renton that we should come out of the convention and immediately rejoin—it is a technicality—with the reservation in place. That is why I think the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is so wrong.
We must be prepared to front up to the entire issue of political correctness in relation to the armed forces. As I have said several times, it should not be for us to decide. These matters must be decided by the chiefs of staff and the chain of command.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Before my hon. Friend leaves the implications for the armed forces of the Human Rights Act 1998, may I ask him this? He will have seen that there are no fewer than four pages in the Bill which deal specifically with repeals that are consequential upon the enactment of the Human Rights Act. Some of the repeals relate to the abolition of the death penalty. Has my hon. Friend had the chance to study the minutiae of the four pages, and has he found anything significant in them?

Mr. Key: I am looking forward to studying the Bill in great depth over the next couple of months. That is what


I intend to do. If my hon. Friend would be so kind as to draw my attention to particular points that he would like to be investigated, I shall do my best.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill.

Mr. Key: I have read the Bill from cover to cover. The hon. Gentleman was thumbing desperately through the Bill trying to reach the end while making that comment.
Last month, the Chief of the Defence Staff attracted a certain amount of controversy when he suggested that it might not be appropriate for disabled people to have equal opportunities in the armed forces. What did he actually say? He said:
Our Defence Ministers do understand our position and have been robust in defence of our case during the recent European debate on ending employment discrimination on grounds of age and disability. I fully understand that those proposing this aspect of employment law were acting with good intentions and for entirely laudable aims. But if left unchecked the impact would have had a detrimental effect on the forces by insisting that disabled people had a right to serve. We need to guard against such ill-conceived ideas in future but the fact that some thought they should apply to the forces is a reflection of that lack of awareness of military issues, which I mentioned earlier. I don't blame them but they must understand that military life is, and should be, different.
I agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff. He was immediately criticised by a long line of people, who I think misunderstood what he was trying to say.
I believe that Parliament needs to have a proper debate about these matters and I believe also that the Bill is the best vehicle for that debate. I hope that the Select Committee will have the opportunity of taking evidence from organisations such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Disability Rights Commission, the all-party parliamentary disablement group, which is so ably led by Lord Ashley of Stoke, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the human rights organisation Liberty and others. We should hear also from the Secretary of State for Defence on the opt-out for the armed forces in respect of a clause in article 13 in the European Union treaty of Amsterdam which forbids employment discrimination on grounds of disability or age.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the hon. Gentleman not, in effect, answered his own point? I understood that the speech to which he was referring was made to make it clear that, when it came to matters of defence, it was essential that people should be required only to do that which they were capable of doing. That was the point. That would deal with the hon. Gentleman's anecdotal accounts of people who are physically unable to deal with wet ropes and with those who put people who are incapable of carrying out certain tasks in a position where they would be required to undertake them.

Mr. Key: I respect the hon. Lady's views on these matters, as on so much else. If she will be patient for a little longer, she will understand what I believe the Chief of the Defence Staff was trying to say. There is another dimension to the matter.
The armed forces of European Union members increasingly work alongside each other under the European security and defence initiative. Some personnel

are conscripts, some volunteers. Some are under 18. Under human rights and military law, what will be the legal basis of orders issued by a commanding officer from a country that forbids military service under 18 to a 17-year-old British regular soldier? On 20 December, the Prime Minister's spokesman made it clear that the Prime Minister backs General Sir Charles Guthrie and stated that
there is no such thing as a non-combatant job …
I think that I know what he meant, but he did not put it clearly and the Government need to clear up the confusion that has been caused.
Back in 1995, the Conservative Government established the "Positive About Disabled People" programme. The Ministry of Defence, then and now, has an action plan to recruit more people with disabilities and to help disabled employees to develop their full potential at work. Only yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence told my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) in a written answer that the MOD employs some 6,000 people with disabilities—about 6 per cent. of its civilian work force, which is about the same percentage as in the whole civilian work force. We know that the military has always sought to employ comrades injured in service, so that is not the issue.
We have an opportunity to listen to and learn from those who believe that there is a case to be made for a rethink of the status quo. I shall certainly be prepared to do that, but the nub of the matter is whether it is right that anybody—anybody at all—should be able to apply for regular front-line infantry service. That is all that the Chief of the Defence Staff was seeking to clarify.

Mr. Mackinlay: The shadow Minister is uttering at the Dispatch Box the same twaddle and Bumbledom that a very frustrated Douglas Bader heard before the battle of Britain—it is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has pointed out that people should be judged on the basis of capability, and if they can fulfil a function, their applications should be examined on their merits.

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Group Captain Bader was fully trained as an operational pilot and had an heroic record. He was injured in service. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that people with a disability—an injured leg or, indeed, no leg—should be able to train as fighter pilots. That is a problem.

Mr. Blunt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Key: Yes, but then I must make progress.

Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because there is a danger of a serious misunderstanding arising over the nature of service life and what service men must be able to do. Even Downing street appears to have it right, which is welcome news to me, and a surprise to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is no such thing as a non-combatant role in the armed services. It has been said that blind people could be radio operators, but radio operators have to be able to operate in a combat environment just like any other soldier. That is why we cannot start recruiting disabled people as service men.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend, who has direct experience of these matters, makes his point extremely well.
Just how far are the Government prepared to go with their agenda of political correctness? That matters very much because the Bill will give the Secretary of State wide powers, particularly in that respect. They are certainly prepared to go as far as the parade ground over sergeant-majors and military bands. The Minister for the Armed Forces took a roasting in the press and media when he confirmed that a team of MOD scientists, academics and civil musicians were reviewing noise levels. He is not present and I fully accept that he has to go to other forums to explain his remarks to the nation, so I shall constrain my remarks, especially as he did me the courtesy of providing an explanation. However, the matter represents a low for Ministers and the MOD and I hope that there will be a steady improvement. The point about brass bands and sergeant-majors has been appropriately derided.
On the face of it, part IV, which will extend the jurisdiction of the MOD police, looks sensible. I served on the Committee that considered the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, which attracted considerable hostility from Home Office police forces. That has largely evaporated. However, there was always unfinished business, and the issue of jurisdiction was at the top of the list.
The proposals cannot go unchallenged, not least because of the objections of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which believes that there are good reasons why the public, if they knew the full position, would object to an extension of the Ministry of Defence police jurisdiction. The Police Federation claims that Ministry of Defence police officers do not have relevant experience, and it does not consider that the Ministry of Defence police has an appropriate approach to recruitment, or that its officers have the necessary training to encourage appropriate interface with the public. The Police Federation is concerned that Ministry of Defence police officers have not been appropriately trained and do not have the appropriate level of experience to deal with the general public.
The Police Federation also believes that the Ministry of Defence police is not sufficiently publicly accountable, so its powers should be limited to MOD matters alone. We shall explore these issues in detail in Committee. There are further concerns about the Ministry of Defence police often being armed—a concern which, I believe, is voiced by the Police Superintendents Association.
Most members of the public do not realise that there are so many different kinds of police in this country. It is a great strength that we have so many police forces, particularly the Home Office constabularies, county by county and the Metropolitan Police. There is a great deterrent effect in the combined effort of all the police forces. Until Christmas, I had seven police forces operating in my constituency. Just before Christmas, I noticed an eighth which had suddenly come on the scene. For some years I have had in my constituency the Wiltshire constabulary, the Ministry of Defence police, the Royal Military police, the Military Provost Guard Service, the UK Atomic Energy Authority police, the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence guard force. Then I saw a brand-new shiny white police car in Salisbury. It was doing its rounds and inside was a gentleman in military uniform. Down the side of the police car was written Army Security Service.
I wondered what that was, as we have not had a Bill on the Army Security Service, so I tabled a parliamentary question. I understand that the Army Security Service is part of the Military Provost Guard Service and that it has put a fleet of 23 white police cars on the roads. I welcome it. It will be an added deterrent and assist the Home Office constabulary in deterring crime. People like to see cars that look like police cars, even if they are not police cars, so the force cannot do much harm. However, its appearance makes the point that Parliament must keep an eye on the proliferation of police forces and their powers.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the Royal Parks constabulary. As someone who, in a past incarnation, was a Minister with responsibility for the Royal Parks constabulary, may I say what a high regard I have for that force, because of its specialist work in dealing with a specialist segment of people in our capital city. It can deal with foreign people who cannot speak English as well as it deals with everyday criminals in the royal parks. It is a remarkable institution that deserves far more recognition and acclaim than it gets.
The hon. Gentleman was right when he pointed out that a problem arises if a Ministry of Defence policeman sees a crime being committed. The answer that I was given by the Royal Parks police was that such a policeman would be expected to do his duty as a citizen. That is all very well, but the Ministry of Defence policeman would have no legal cover beyond that which he had as a civilian.
I commend the Ministry of Defence police for its work with young people in the DARE—drug abuse resistance education—programme, which is an anti-drugs and alcohol programme in schools. It is a remarkable programme, which is hugely successful in my constituency.
During the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill, the Ministry of Defence tried to estimate the cost of implementing the changes that would flow from the Act. It estimated that there would be about 1,500 appeals a year to the summary appeals court. On that basis, the estimated cost of implementing the changes would be £6.5 million a year. The start-up costs of £1.5 million would cover the cost of additional computer systems, personnel, accommodation and office equipment. It was estimated that 55 additional service personnel and 35 additional MOD civilians would need to be employed.
In its fourth report, the Select Committee on Defence asked witnesses why the estimated number of appeals had been revised from 850 to 900. The Committee was told by the head of the Armed Forces Bill team at the MOD that that could be explained by a re-assessment of the nature of appeals, which were more likely to be against sentences than against the findings of summary proceedings, and significant additional investigative work would not therefore be necessary. The Committee reported that all three services had told it that good progress had been made in recruiting the necessary additional lawyers and had not encountered problems in attracting the right calibre of applicants.
We will wish to probe in Committee the question of additional costs and manpower. We will also return to one of the scandalous unanswered questions of last year's Armed Forces Discipline Bill—the lack of proper legal aid for our service men and women when faced with courts martial. With all the professionalism and good will in the world, the Army legal service cannot get away from


the fact that its members are part of the chain of command; they are not perceived to be independent and impartial. We return to the human rights judge and jury syndrome. The Army declares that it wants as broad a range of choice of legal practitioner as possible to be available to forces personnel. That is not the reality. Last year, the Lord Chancellor specifically excluded swathes of the armed forces from assistance by the Legal Aid Board, and the Government have failed to remedy that. There are no relevant provisions in the Bill.
In the strategic defence review, the Government acknowledged the benefits of a tri-service discipline Act to replace the three service discipline Acts now under consideration. They have failed to deliver. They have also failed to deliver consolidation of the three Acts, even though that has been in progress since July 1991. We have heard what the Government have said: they have decided to abandon consolidation; but if it has taken 10 years to reach the point of abandoning consolidation, what hope is there that the Government will instruct the Lord Chancellor's Department to give the necessary priority to the Law Commission and others to undertake the massive job of producing a single tri-service Act? We have heard a commitment this afternoon on a time scale for that. It is an extremely tight commitment, to which we will hold the Government, but we shall not need to wait because we will be there and make sure that it happens.
In the Select Committee's special report on the Armed Forces Bill, printed on 30 April 1996, at paragraph 37, the Committee recommended that the Government ensure that the necessary resources and parliamentary time were made available. Their hopes have been dashed. We expect early progress in that area.
I invite the House to decline to give a Second Reading to the Armed Forces Bill. The Government have failed to address the challenge to military combat effectiveness from the gathering tide of legislation, whose authors do not understand that military life is and should be different, and that training for, and taking part in, battle is not like going to the office. The Government fail to take into account that the culture of risk aversion developing in society is anathema to service men and women whose profession requires a degree of decisiveness, flair and courage which sits badly with some of the more restrictive practices of modern civilian employment legislation.
The Government do not recognise that the chiefs of staff are not in the business of designing armed forces for the good times, but have to advise what will work when conditions are tough, dangerous and frightening. The Bill encourages a further creeping advance of litigation which will breed a cautious group of military leaders who may step back from courageous decisions for fear of being pursued through the courts. The blame for that belongs with the Government.
The fears that I have expressed are not just those of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition; they are widely held in all three services, which is no doubt why they were expressed in terms by the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute on 19 December 2000. I end by repeating his words:
If we hamstring our fighting services with inappropriate legislation then we will create a generation of sailors, soldiers and airmen who are little more than a gendarmerie.

Mr. Bruce George: In the 1980s, I was quite nervous about the Labour party's defence policy. I was rather fearful about it. I am not one of those who have changed their minds on defence in general, but, having observed the Government in action on defence matters for approaching four years, they have done little that causes me a great deal of anxiety. What does disturb me is that many of the things that Conservative Members supported enthusiastically, they now appear to oppose.
My wife accuses me regularly of being the personification of political incorrectness, but, in the many military units that I have visited, I have not discerned that women in the armed forces are a profound liability—quite the reverse. The recruiting crisis that began a long time before 1997—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) stays, he might learn a little more, but prejudice does not meet reason too frequently.
I have seen women in the armed forces performing admirably. They are not there for reasons of political correctness, but because they have a right to be there. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) talked about a woman in charge of transport command in Bahrain, he unfortunately forgot another example, which is that when we visited the Kuwaiti air base, which was occupied by the United States air force and the Royal Air Force, the pilot of the fourth Tornado aircraft, about to do some nasty things to Iraqi equipment, was a woman. No one to whom we spoke said that, somehow, that woman was not worth her place in the RAF.
It was, after all, the Minister for the Armed Forces in the early 1990s who courageously and famously announced that, forthwith, women would be allowed to serve on board Her Majesty's warships, and that he was confident, as ever, that the senior service would rise to meet the challenge. Those are words that I shall remember for many reasons. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) looks at the Conservative party's record in introducing women into the armed forces, he need feel no embarrassment. The idea that women could be extricated from the armed forces without a catastrophic effect on the armed forces is beyond words.

Mr. Key: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: I promise that I will give way, but I must add that, from one or two things in the hon. Gentleman's speech and what he has said he intends to talk about, the Select Committee should be fun. It is a great shame that no member of the Defence Committee will be on that Committee, but more about that later. It will be a fun Committee, because all the prejudices that have been displayed by Conservative Members will replace serious debate on serious issues. We have heard little about the technicalities, perhaps because the hon. Gentleman has not gone into them. We have been treated to an incredible exercise in political prejudice—against the disabled and almost every category whom he represents in his constituency. I shall not threaten to send a copy of his speech to disablement and women's rights organisations, and every other category of minority that apparently can expect no place in the armed forces under a Conservative Administration. I shall simply say, having read that it


takes 4.5 billion years to degrade a piece of depleted uranium, that that seems about the time scale that the hon. Gentleman will have to anticipate a degrading of the Government's appeal. I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman's riposte. He knows that my words are in no way malevolent.

Mr. Key: Indeed I do. The right hon. Gentleman—I congratulate him—has known me over many years and in some tight places, literally as well as metaphorically, and he knows that I recognise the contribution that women have made. He is misrepresenting my views, and I believe that he knows it. I invite him in riposte to anticipate the reports of the Ministry of Defence and of his Committee, to which we are looking forward keenly. What is his judgment of, and what would he say to the Chief of the Defence staff about, the role of women on the front line of the infantry?

Mr. George: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall not avoid his question. I had hoped that our report could be produced in time for Committee members to bring their experience to the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill. Regrettably, that has not been possible: the time scale for introducing the Bill has made it difficult to produce our report in time to do that. However, we are struggling to bring the report to the Select Committee's attention—in fact, before the Committee is operational.
The Defence Committee report is the product of the work of advisers, staff and the 11 Committee members. However, my own view is that perhaps it would be wise in future if the Defence Committee looked at the reforms to see whether the forebodings have been realised: whether women in the armed forces means mass fornication, cowardice and retreats in the face of the enemy; whether gays in the military will cause excessive problems; and whether the argument that some people—if not the hon. Member for Salisbury—have used, that blacks in the military will be a disruptive force, holds. Of course, it does not.
Political representatives in government have every right to tell the Chief of the Defence Staff the parameters within which he must operate. We have not given that power to the military. If members of the military want to become politicians, they can. There is an example in the House this afternoon, and there are several less successful entrants on the Opposition Benches. I say that mischievously, not malevolently.
The hon. Member for Salisbury was correct about one thing. I regret the forthcoming retirement of the Chief of the Defence Staff, although the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will not be despondent when that day finally arrives. The ultimate test of the military is not necessarily how well it reflects society, but how well it performs when it is required to perform effectively. Even though I support the reforms, uppermost in my mind and, I hope, in the minds of Ministers, is the question of how much farther we shall have to go to achieve a perfectly representative military that will include ageing, obese cowards like myself. Frankly, I would forgo the right to be represented in the military—as, looking around, would most, if not all of my colleagues. We cannot expect the military to be a microcosm of society.
Although I support the reforms, one has to be cautious and say that there are limits beyond which one should not go. That is why I would argue strongly that, at some stage early in the next Parliament—or perhaps a little later to give the reforms a chance to mature—we should see how successful or otherwise the reforms have been. If reforms or changes need to be made, I hope that the Government will have the courage to take the appropriate measures.

Mr. Mackinlay: I like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) very much and, contrary to his better judgment, he may have some regard for me. However, his speech ought to be read by every woman in the land because it was full of stereotyping and anecdotal prejudice. It portrayed the confused and sometimes malevolent thinking in the Conservative party. I wanted to share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) the fact that I spent a day with the hon. Member for Salisbury on HMS Invincible. He would certainly be disqualified from serving because of his lack of agility. However, I remember that the commanding officer of HMS Invincible telling us of the high proportion of women ratings and officers on his ship.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is bordering on a speech.

Mr. George: Thank you for rescuing me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my colleague was making a pertinent point.
The Select Committee that is being formed will be interesting. Obviously, politics will rear its ugly head. Later, we shall have a vote, which, unfortunately, will destroy any hope of a consensual approach on some issues.

Mr. Viggers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—I have never had a chance to call him that before. He and I serve on the Defence Committee, of which he is a distinguished Chairman, and have both served on the Select Committee considering a previous Armed Forces Bill. He knows that the Defence Committee has influence but no power, whereas the Committee considering such Bills has enormous power to scrutinise the Government and, effectively, to hold them to ransom. What does the right hon. Gentleman think is the Government's motive for not choosing any member of the Defence Committee to serve on the Select Committee considering the Bill?

Mr. George: It is worse than that: it is the exclusion not only of members of the Defence Committee, but of Back Benchers. The composition of the Select Committee considering the Bill is a classic case of the Executive dominating the legislature. After 300 years of alleged parliamentary supremacy, that Committee has Executive supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. From the Opposition, there are two wannabe Ministers; there is also the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is another wannabe, but he will wanna be for a hell of a lot longer than the Conservative Members who sit proximate to him. There is also a Whip and a parliamentary private secretary, so Opposition membership of that Committee is dominated by would-be members of the Executive. Labour membership of the Committee consists of two Ministers, who are extremely competent, two private


Parliamentary private secretaries and a Whip. Inclusion of a member of the Defence Committee would not make much difference because there appears to be a carve-up between the Executive and the alternative Executive. I shall say no more than that, as I am already in enough trouble with my colleagues. However, I find matters regrettable.
My hon. Friend the Member for somewhere in the frozen north—I am sorry, I cannot remember Dari Taylor's Teesside constituency, but her football team is improving by the minute—will be unique. I hope that she will be looked after, although she can look after herself, because she is the only Back-Bench representative on the Committee. I profoundly regret that, but I shall say no more. However, I thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for giving me the opportunity to raise that matter rather earlier than I intended.

Mr. Hoyle: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that it is not only Back Benchers who have an interest, but also the Back-Bench defence committee in Parliament. Two vice-chairmen and the secretary of that committee were not even asked if they might be considered or asked about their views. There has been a total exclusion, so I should like to back my right hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I remind him that this is the Second Reading of the Bill. We shall come to the motion on the Committee later this evening.

Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall come on to that later.
The ad hoc Committee will be interesting, but not as interesting as it was in 1996, when we dealt directly with gays in the military, equal opportunities, the sale of Greenwich naval college—which was a disgrace—the court martial system, use of alcohol and drugs, and local service engagement. That engagement was bizarre, as it operated only within the travel-to-work area. "Sharpe" was being shown on television at the time and, to alter slightly what it said for the case of local service engagements: "Queen Anne commands and we obey, over the hills and as far as Wolverhampton." That, I am afraid, was the limit of local service involvement. However, the Conservatives' policy when they were in government is now our party's policy.
In addition to the problem of the composition of the Select Committee, there are other problems, to which the hon. Member for Salisbury referred. In 1991, the ad hoc Select Committee asked whether it was time that the single service Acts were "consolidated", and accordingly made a recommendation. We then met in 1996, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport—I use that phrase deliberately—was Chairman. I wondered how long it would take before we destabilised the team that was giving evidence to us. It took about four minutes, after the hon. Member for Gosport asked why consolidation was not included in the Bill. The answer was bizarre. We were told that a guy was seconded by the Treasury counsel; he worked for a couple of years on preparing the consolidated Bill and then left. Apparently, not enough lawyers were around—a pretty bizarre excuse in a country that is overflowing with members of the legal profession—to fill the gap. Thus, there was not the

slightest chance of achieving any consolidation in the 1996 Bill. Ten years on from the initial consideration of the matter, there is still no sign of consolidation. Instead, the process might drift on until 2005–06. We are told that a new Act will then do the business. If that happens, it will be nearly 15 years since Parliament called for some rationality in the legislation. I do not regard that as a triumph for the Executive, who have become the legislature in the Select Committee that will consider the Bill. No doubt, they will be able to resolve the matter.
In 1985, it was suggested that the Select Committee on Defence should be given power to deal with the Armed Forces Bill. At that time, the Defence Committee said, "Thank you very much, but no thanks. We do not want to do it." However, serious consideration should be given to ensuring that the Select Committee on Defence has that role, although that proposal might be too radical for the Ministry of Defence. Instead, perhaps a draft Bill could be referred to the Defence Committee for consideration. It could then be handed back for consideration by the Armed Forces Select Committee that usually considers such Bills, with augmentation by Ministers and shadow spokesmen. The Defence Committee could achieve much more serious consideration by tailoring its activities to culminate in the publication of a report on the Bill. Such an arrangement would not be quite as radical an innovation as handing the whole procedure to the Defence Committee.
The Select Committee that will consider the Bill has a further weakness. Unlike any other Select Committee, it has no advisers. I have drafted an amendment to flag up that concern. It would introduce the following provision:
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.
Having seen the composition of the Committee, I realise that the amendment would be almost redundant, as the Executive—who are now the legislature—have access to the Ministry of Defence and to its advice. One might ask why, as we Back Benchers have been rendered superfluous, we should not let them get on with it and make it an entirely in-house operation.
Much of the Bill relates to security and policing. The Ministry of Defence has an enormous estate. It has a budget of £22 billion, which is one of the largest in Whitehall. More than 300,000 directly employed staff work in the MOD and the 44 defence executive agencies. The MOD's equipment procurement budget is £10 billion per annum, and it supports an industry of some 420,000 workers. The estate is physically enormous and amounts to 22,000 hectares. It comprises museums, art galleries, works of art, ships, tanks, computers and so on. It is incredible.
The task of providing policing and security falls to the Ministry of Defence police. Despite some of the remarks made by the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers, it is clear that the police are a professional force. They are supported by the MOD Guard Service, an in-house security force that is one of the most professional security forces in the country. Under the Bill, the service police forces are becoming more like civilian police forces, with many constabulary powers. I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury will consider that issue when he breaks out of his little prejudices. I recall his views as I served with him on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Ministry of


Defence Police Act 1987. We must also bear in mind the Military Provost Guard Service and the list X companies, which have mostly private security.
Thankfully, and despite the indifference of the Conservative party, the Government seek to regulate private security. The quality of personnel in the industry will consequently be enhanced enormously. The Defence Committee produced numerous reports recommending that there be no further employment of private security workers until the industry is regulated. Once the industry is regulated, it can perform tasks that no sane Ministry of Defence would currently bestow upon it because of lack of professionalism and training.
The Bill improves the quality of policing and security in the Ministry of Defence. I desperately hoped that the Defence Committee would have an opportunity to undertake a major inquiry into policing and security in the Ministry. Unfortunately, it does not appear that we shall have time to do so. I hope that whoever is Chairman of the Committee in the next Parliament will take up that proposal.
It is absolutely right for the powers of the MOD police to be extended. They cannot be seen as a supplementary force for the Home Office police forces, who might not have displayed hostility over the years, but have certainly had an attitude that is less than caring or brotherly. They have ridiculed the MOD police's professionalism, equipment and training. I have seen the reports on constabularies by Her Majesty's inspectors. They do not reflect the prejudiced view of the Home Office police forces. I pay tribute to the recently retired chief constable of the MOD police force, Mr. Walter Boreham, and welcome his successor. It is right for the powers of the MOD police to be extended. I have some reservations, so I invite all hon. Members who have the freedom to offer their views or their opinions on the matter, although I am aiming at a fairly restricted audience. I hope that all hon. Members perceive the need to ensure that the powers of the service police are in line with the requirements of policing in general.
I wish all hon. Members who will serve on the Select Committee considering the Bill an enjoyable and informative time. Despite the Opposition's decision to oppose the procedure, such Committees tend to produce consensus. No doubt, the Committee will visit the glasshouse in Colchester. The quality of the prisoners means that it is difficult to distinguish them from their guards—[Interruption.] I shall not rephrase that. The glasshouse has superior prisoners, who are there not because they are criminals, but because they have breached discipline. The last time that the Committee visited, one of the guys taking us around had gone AWOL. He had established a successful sporting business, but decided that he would go back and serve his sentence. Perhaps one reason for his decision was that he was invited to appear on "Gladiators", so somebody might have spotted him. I was unable to tell that he was not a member of the supervisory staff.
We can be incredibly proud of our armed forces. It sounds almost patronising to say that we have the most professional armed forces in the world. We must maintain that very high status by providing the best equipment that we can afford. We can afford more than we are spending now. We must ensure that our forces are well trained,

well motivated and have all the qualifications that we desire. The Defence Committee's report on personnel issues explores many such matters in considerable depth.
I hope that the Bill will not be detrimental to the high standards that we have grown to expect and I do not believe that it will be. It is a necessary piece of legislation.
Finally, I urge Members to read the Library's briefing, which makes it clear that ours is not just another Committee. It is a sort of hybrid Committee. That reminds me of Sir Winston Churchill's taunt about his colleague Sir Clive Bossom. He said "Silly name: neither one thing nor the other." The Committee is, perhaps, neither one thing nor the other, but it must be seen against the background of the constitutional evolution of the supremacy of the legislature over the Executive.
I implore the Whips, when the time next comes round, to read our Defence Committee report, to read the Library's briefing, and then to agree with their counterparts on the other side to hand the Committee back to the legislature, rather than allowing it to be occupied by the Executive. Back Benchers on this Committee are about as numerous as Brits in Chelsea football club.
I hope that things will change for the better, and that when the composition of the next Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is considered, members of the Executive will be invitees and the majority of members will be Back Benchers. That is what the supremacy of legislature over Executive means. We do not want more of the supremacy of Executive over legislature that has become a feature of our institution.

Mr. Tom King: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on becoming a Privy Councillor, and welcome him to what is a rather strange organisation. I welcome him sincerely, given his many years of service as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the armed forces. Such tributes are commonly paid, and when the right hon. Gentleman paid it there was an echo of support around the Chamber; but the reputation that we praise here, in so facile a way, carries a heavy responsibility. That reputation, and the standard of excellence that we have come to expect from our armed forces, have been achieved not simply by accident, but through centuries of evolution and the gradual development of a system—a discipline; an organisation—that has stood the country in very good stead, and continues to do so.
Several Members mentioned Sir Charles Guthrie's recent speech at the Royal United Services Institute. I was struck by one of his comments. When we talk of what we expect from our armed forces, we tend to forget what is actually involved. Sir Charles said that, during his time as Chief of the Defence Staff, British forces had been involved in no fewer than 40 operations in 20 countries. That is a measure of the activity that we expect from them, and the complexity and variety of the tasks that we expect them to perform.
Parts of the Bill are not particularly controversial, although they are detailed, technical and evolutionary. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that much of the Bill can be supported by members of all parties. That may be why some have looked for aspects to criticise.
Some rather fatuous remarks were made about my hon. Friend's perfectly sensible comment that there was a problem with the role of women in the armed forces. That, surely, is accepted. I do not know whether anyone has proposed that women should serve in submarines or in Royal Armoured Corps tanks, although there is some debate about whether they should serve in infantry badge units. Such matters will have to be discussed.
Anyone with experience of the armed forces knows that women make a valuable contribution in many areas. Indeed, I have the impression that in some aspects of electronic warfare—certainly on ships—some display an aptitude that may be superior to that of men. During the Gulf war, there was a concern about women serving in our forces in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where women civilians were not allowed to drive cars. We observed the contrast with the air refuelling capability of the United States national guard—based at Jeddah, next to the Mecca pilgrim terminal. Half the pilots of the planes involved were women. The valuable contribution that women can make is no secret, and what my hon. Friend said was entirely sensible. I am sorry that some hon. Members sought to misrepresent it.
The evolution of our defence policies can be compared with the evolution of our military strategy. Labour Members, including Ministers, often talk as though they invented the strategy of greater mobility and more flexible capability. I was glad to note Sir Charles Guthrie's reference to our steady progress in realigning our policies and developing
a coherent joint doctrine for expeditionary operations.
He took some pride in the progress made on that doctrine, which was established 10 years ago. As I was involved in aspects of its creation, I was grateful for the recognition that a strategy drawn up in "Britain's Army of the 1990s" had been allowed to make such progress—progress that started with "Options for Change".
I have had the privilege of holding positions of responsibility in both Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence, which revealed to me the difficult challenges that we pose to our service men in a host of different circumstances. Those circumstances may present them with real danger; their lives may be threatened—but we require them to act, and react, in a disciplined, responsible and legal manner.
We should bear in mind the challenges that are posed to service men on the street. It is easy enough in Committee to try to draw up blueprints; it is easy enough for Ministry of Defence lawyers to write down the required obligations and rules, and for other clever lawyers to crawl all over what they have written. We should, however, consider the challenges presented on the street to someone of 18 or 19.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has campaigned on behalf of two of his constituents. That tragic and awful case, with all its complications, illustrated very clearly the challenging and immediate problems faced by individual soldiers. The yellow card in Northern Ireland, the rules of engagement in the Gulf war and the disciplinary codes, requirements and rules, such as Queen's regulations, under which the services have had to operate in the past—demonstrate the need for a structure that members of the forces can understand, in which they can have confidence, and which can enable them to work effectively.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, South discussed our needs. Sir Charles Guthrie said exactly the same. We need proper resources for defence, we need effective equipment and we need adequate personnel with high morale. That has always been the objective of our armed forces, and achieving it has enabled them to serve our country as well as they have in the past.
High morale depends in part on the provision of sufficient resources—not just finance, but numbers. Although this is not directly relevant to the Bill, I refer in passing to Sir Charles's worrying statement that the Army is 8,000 short, and has had to change the date by which it expects to achieve full manning levels from 2005 to 2008. I do not believe any prediction for 2008: that date is too far away, and there are too many variables between now and then. What we are really being told is that we are 8,000 short now, and will remain short until at least 2008. That is the best prediction, which is very worrying.
What is the importance of that and what is its relevance to the Bill? We face in any case a worrying recruitment problem—and the demographic situation is against that. It will be a difficult challenge. We face a 6 per cent. fall in the catchment potential over the next 30 years and difficulties of recruitment. We will not be able to deal with additional problems if the morale of the armed forces is affected and if they feel that they are operating in circumstances where it is not possible for them to do the job that is expected of them.
That is what Sir Charles Guthrie referred to, but being Chief of the Defence Staff, he understandably spoke with moderation. I commend his speech to every hon. Member. He chose his words with care and has understated the position. As a serving officer, he has no choice but to do that. One should recognise that for him to raise these issues means that we are facing a really grave situation. A threat to combat effectiveness arises—it is spelled out in the amendment—with the multiplicity of legislation. The more we treat our soldiers as though they are civilians working within normal civilian law, the more challenges we face.
There is no doubt—I made the point in the foreword to the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been tabled in the House, and Sir Charles made the same point—that there was a wonderful stability in the cold war. He said that he knew the German plain as well as he knew Hyde park. At the time of the cold war, the threats that our forces faced, the challenges, the issues and the rules of engagement were clear. Now, a much more difficult environment exists.
The Minister does not know what call may come tonight from the Foreign Office for support and urgent action in a territory or area that we may not have visited and may not have any accurate intelligence about, but where the military are expected to respond. If the Minister and his colleagues say to the Chief of the Defence Staff, "Can you do it?", he will say, "We'll do it. We do not know how yet. Give me some time." We have all been in that situation.
There is even talk that our forces may be engaged—as they will be—against well-armed international criminal organisations or drug cartels, which is outside the former remit of fighting the Soviet Union or dealing with the cold war. The circumstances are completely different. Therefore, the need is for clear protection for our armed


forces, so that they do not go into operations not sure of what their legal position is, what actions they may face or what claims may be made against them afterwards.
It is a difficult challenge. Sir Charles talked about the lack in our society, in the media and in politics of any real military experience. The Chairman of the Defence Committee made the point. Like him, I draw the distinction—what is the duty of politicians and Ministers and what is the duty of the Chiefs of the Defence Staff? I quote Sir Charles:
The Chiefs of Staff have a duty to recommend to the government how to produce the best operational capability for the nation.
He went on to say that we must ensure that nothing—I repeat nothing—damages the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.
I absolutely accept and endorse that the armed forces do not rule this country. It is not a military dictatorship. Chiefs of the Defence Staff are responsible to a democratically elected Parliament and to Ministers, but as, increasingly, Ministers have no military background—the Prime Minister has no military background—the difficulty lies in correctly assessing the situation.
I make no secret of the fact that Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Chiefs of Staff and the services have their particular angles and objectives, but the challenge and difficulty is to ensure that the effectiveness of our armed forces is maintained and that advice is listened to seriously. For Ministers who do not have practical military experience, the responsibility of listening all the more carefully to the professional advice that comes is clear.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument in its broader context, but it is not strictly true that one needs to have a military background in order to be an effective Armed Forces Minister. After all, in the middle of the 19th century, during the heyday—if one can put it like that—of British military conquests, few Ministers had military experience. After the Duke of Wellington, I do not think that any did. I cannot remember Disraeli or Gladstone serving in the infantry, as the right hon. Gentleman and I did.

Mr. King: I was not seeking to make that point. I was not saying that lack of military experience disqualifies Ministers from serving in the MOD. There have been some outstanding Defence Ministers who did not have a military background, but it is a challenge and a problem, particularly understanding the points about legislation.
Sir Charles referred to the raft of legislation: measures on health and safety at work, the working time directive, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the service discipline Acts. Each one on its own is not necessarily a problem. Now a study group is being set up to discuss the impact of noise in military situations; it is examining both brass bands and combat situations. That is reasonable; I understand that. There may be a health and safety issue, but, as we gradually pile those measures together and then introduce the European convention on human rights, we get into a situation—I believe that this is now happening—where the MOD is advising commanders that they should take out personal insurance policies against being sued, perhaps by those under their command; there

may be claims that some order led to serious consequences and they could be held responsible for negligence.
Has anyone advised Ministers to take out any personal insurance policy in turn? People used to think that all Ministers were protected against individual claims against them—it happened when I was a Minister—but I am not sure that that is true any longer. If they have been advising commanders to take out insurance policies, I should be interested to know whether they are being advised to do so, too. Sir Charles referred in his speech to a platoon commander possibly being sued by his own men.
It is a world in which there is a critical role for our armed forces and in which we are doing things that not many years ago we would never have expected to do. We would never have expected to find ourselves involved in some of the peacekeeping and peacemaking activities that are now taking place, which in certain respects are far more dangerous to individual soldiers than most of the activities during the cold war ever were. Individual soldiers face such risks to life. We need to be sure about the terms under which they work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury used Sir Charles Guthrie's quote about reducing our armed forces to the level of a gendarmerie. There is no doubt that the armed forces of some countries are not able to play the same role as our forces in peacekeeping and peacemaking because they feel constrained by the legislation under which they operate. Sir Charles Guthrie said:
I do think the uniqueness of the Services is not always well understood and the modern concern for the rights of the individual sometimes have to be sacrificed in the military for the collective good of the team. Some countries have been less successful than us in preserving this quintessential difference between the military and civilians. I understand why they have been forced down this path, but feel their forces are the poorer for it.
The Bill has failed to address the challenge that is drawn out in part of the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are proud of our armed forces. I have heard many people in Northern Ireland, the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo—not British comments, but others—say that nobody else could have operated in the way that the British forces did. We must preserve their combat effectiveness. The House has a duty to ensure that if we ask young men and women to serve our country and, as President Bush used to say, to stand in harm's way, we must ensure that the discipline, the laws, the rights and the arrangements under which they operate are fair and enable them to preserve the effectiveness of the armed forces of which we are so proud.

Ms Rachel Squire: I am always pleased to have an opportunity to listen to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in defence debates. I, too, have heard worldwide praise for the unique skills and professionalism of the British armed forces in dealing with conflict prevention and peacekeeping. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I am committed to upholding that invaluable reputation.
I shall make some general comments, leaving the detailed and technical consideration to the Committee. I should like to refer to the speech made by the Chief of the Defence Staff to the Royal United Services Institute in December. I have had an opportunity to read that speech


and I welcome many of its excellent points. I regret that it was so inadequately and selectively re ported by the media. The reporting did not assist the serious debate that we need on the future of our armed forces.
I agree with what has been said by right hon. and hon. Members about the importance of availing ourselves of the perspective of the armed forces. Sir Charles Guthrie said:
Today few people in the media or in politics have any real experience of the military. Indeed very few people in the country at large have any first hand knowledge of the Forces, and this is increasing as fathers and grandfathers with wartime or national Service experience fade away.
We need to be aware of that when dealing with armed forces legislation. I hope that the Committee will try to provide as many opportunities as possible, formally and informally, to hear directly the views of armed forces personnel. It is also important for the Committee to hear the views of the families and representatives of armed forces personnel. As a constituency Member, I have been contacted by relatives of those who are serving in the armed forces, and I have had representations made to me about concerns over investigatory procedures or disciplinary matters.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments about the need for the Committee to be willing to receive family members. Will she consider those in long-term relationships who are not married? They have different rights and are often left out of the equation. The partners in such relationships made strong representations to the Defence Committee about the need for a change of emphasis. Long-term partnerships should be recognised by the Ministry of Defence and given the same rights.

Ms Squire: I am trying to remember whether any part of the Bill would cover that. I hope that the views of the Defence Committee are made available so that its extensive and thorough evidence will assist the Bill Committee.
We must recognise the unique circumstances of armed forces personnel. To put it bluntly, it is the only occupation with legal authorisation to kill in particular circumstances and where one is required to put one's life on the line. People may say that those serving in our civilian police forces can be tragically killed when enforcing the law, but they are enforcing the law in a civilian society, not dealing with conflict and those who seek to stir up hatred and violence for their own political ends.
Linked to that is the conduct of individual service men and women and the effect that they can have on the lives of fellow serving personnel. Sir Charles Guthrie talked about balancing the rights of the individual with the good of the team. That balance needs to be maintained when examining aspects of military discipline and the differing procedures that apply to service personnel and those in civilian life.
My next point backs up what has been said by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, other hon. Members and the Chief of the Defence Staff. It refers to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the way our armed forces have been asked to operate since the end of the cold war. Many of those changes had already taken place when the House last considered an Armed Forces Bill, but change has carried on apace since then.
Unfortunately, ethnic conflicts have come to dominate the global scene. Our armed forces operate in a global environment that many people would say was less stable and secure than in the days of the cold war. There are very few clearly defined battle lines, and the scenario is more complex than during the cold war standoff. The battlefield is confused, fluid and multidimensional and there is an ever-increasing demand that our armed forces be involved in international support operations. When we consider the Bill in detail in Committee, we need to be aware of those changes and of the additional pressures that exist.
We must also keep it in mind that combat-effectiveness remains crucial and that the order and discipline of our armed forces must be maintained. That is especially important in circumstances such as prevailed in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, where an argument between two people could—in a matter of hours, or even quicker—develop into violent confrontation between communities, and then expand even beyond that.
Such circumstances place particular pressures on our armed services personnel. It is understandable that those pressures can sometimes cause those personnel to fail to comply with the strict codes of conduct that apply to them. It is therefore vital that the Committee considering the Bill should check that the military law meets the current needs of the services and the realities that personnel deal with every day.
The fundamentals of the administration of discipline must be maintained even as possible changes to the service discipline Acts are considered. I hope that the Committee will consider the Bill in a serious and informed way, and that its members will not engage in party political point scoring. Any subjective opinions that might be expressed must not be allowed to go unchallenged, but must be tested.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has had to leave the Chamber for the moment. However, I have chaired the Labour Back-Bench defence committee for a number of years and, despite some of my hon. Friend's comments, I am looking forward to considering in detail the Select Committee's report on the armed services.
I end by joining other hon. Members in expressing my pride at the way in which our armed forces are respected and admired around the world. All hon. Members have a responsibility to maintain those forces' professionalism, skills and reputation. We must keep that requirement at the forefront of our minds when we consider this Bill.

Mr. Paul Keetch: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). I begin by echoing what she and other hon. Members have said about the British armed forces. In my opinion, there is no question but that they are the finest in the world, and in my constituency of Hereford I see some of the finest of the finest.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is not in his place just now, but he described me earlier as a wannabe. The only thing that I have ever wanted to be is the Member of Parliament for Hereford, and to represent in this House the people of the city and county of Hereford, where I was born. I am happy to do that, and want to remain in that role.


However, I shall keep my remarks brief, to ensure that other Back-Bench Members have an opportunity to speak—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has an important contribution to make later in the debate.
The House has already heard, from the Minister for the Armed Forces, that by 2005–06 a single, tri-service discipline Act should be in place. Liberal Democrat Members are disappointed that such an Act will not be put before the House in this Session. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said in an earlier intervention, what are known as "purple operations" are increasingly being undertaken. The strategic defence review was right to propose in 1998 that the possibility of passing a single Act ought to be examined.
Our forces are now jointly deployable. For instance, in Sierra Leone, the Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force operated off Royal Air Force ships. It therefore becomes increasingly silly to have separate discipline legislation for each service. We look forward to 2005–06, when I am sure that the Liberal Democrat Government of that time will introduce a single tri-service discipline Act. I look forward to being part of that process.
I turn now to the reasoned amendment tabled by the current loyal Opposition. Every time I hear Conservative Members attack the European Court of Human Rights, I am reminded that a British initiative helped to set it up. The court is not a great European Union scheme to threaten British sovereignty, and Liberal Democrats support many of the things that it has achieved.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Keetch: I lovingly give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the then British Government supported the concept of the European convention on human rights, but I should like to remind him of the circumstances in which the convention was drawn up. The aim was to try to prevent a repetition of the holocaust, and all that accompanied it in the 1939–45 period. However, the British Government of the day would not endorse the convention until they were entirely satisfied that every Act of Parliament enacted by this House was compliant with the convention as it was then envisaged. What has happened is that the influence of the convention has crept and crept and crept—so much so that it now interferes with many aspects of our national life and is deeply damaging to our services.

Mr. Keetch: Life has crept and crept and crept since 1951, and time has moved on. I am happy to belong to a party that recognises and understands that. We do not sit Canute-like on the shore beneath the white cliffs of Dover, resisting Europe's becoming part of our lives. We are part of Europe, and I am proud of that.
Reference has been made to other pieces of legislation that effect so-called political correctness, including those Acts that govern armed services discipline, health and

safety, the working time directive and human rights. They impinge on service life, just as they impinge on all our lives, and I am glad that they do. Of course it is silly to suggest that military bands should play more softly, or that sergeant majors should not shout so loudly. We understand that that is political correctness gone mad, but there is nothing in the Bill to damage the effectiveness of our armed forces.
Reference has also been made to the use of women in our armed forces. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife stated in an article in The Daily Telegraph in December:
People should remember that victory in the Falklands in the end depended on British troops clearing trenches on Mount Tumbledown using their bayonets.
I have been fortunate enough to go to Mount Tumbledown and to have seen the area in question. I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend wrote, and I agree entirely. However, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) did not speak about that at all. He questioned the actions of women in those parts of the armed forces where their role is just as valid and real as that of men. I have seen women in action on warships, and I contend that in many cases they play their part considerably better than men play theirs.
Some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Salisbury could have been made just as well about women in the police and prison services, in hospitals or in the media. Women play a vital role in our armed forces, and must continue to do so.
Some of the things that we have heard today about women have been said in the past by Conservatives about gays in the military. We were told that gays in the military would destroy service discipline, and that the Royal Navy would crumble, the Royal Air Force would fall apart and the military would somehow collapse. However, Sir Charles Guthrie said in his oft-quoted speech to the RUSI:
Even the acceptance of homosexuals did not turn out to be the major issue that some thought it would be. Personally, I never believed it would.

Mr. Key: Quite.

Mr. Keetch: Despite what the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has just said, some Conservative Members have constantly undermined the role of some gay service people. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats never did that. I have faith in our armed forces. I have faith that they can adapt to new circumstances, that they will accept new legislation and that they will continue to be the finest in the world. If Her Majesty's loyal Opposition do not have that faith, I am sorry.
I am bitterly disappointed that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—who also had to leave before I had the chance to speak—is unable to be on the ad hoc Select Committee that is being established. He would have made a valuable contribution to it. I hope that that Committee will spend time listening to service people and their families, friends and relatives, and examining the service environment in which they live, not only in the United Kingdom but overseas. We welcome the establishment of that Committee.
We also welcome the proposals on drug testing. The use of drugs in our armed forces is becoming more and more apparent, and must be nipped in the bud. We accept


and welcome the Bill's clarification of the rules as regards the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and we also welcome the placement of warrant officers on courts martial. These are all welcome additions to the existing legislation. We also welcome the fact that the sons and stepchildren of service people will be allowed to marry in service chapels.
We welcome any means by which the Ministry of Defence police are enabled to reduce crime. However, we share some of the concerns expressed by the Police Federation. Of course MDP officers should intervene if they see a crime being committed while travelling from one base to another. We would expect that of any citizen in our society. However, we want to ensure that the MDP is not seen as an auxiliary police force in towns in which military bases are located. Its officers are not trained to the same level as those of the county constabularies.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who also had to leave the Chamber before my speech, mentioned the Royal Parks police. Within a mile of the Palace of Westminster, one can find Ministry of Defence police, Royal Parks police, British Transport police and the Metropolitan police. Perhaps it is time for us to review the duties of those constabularies as well.
I conclude with a remark made by Sir Charles Guthrie, who was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) before he had to leave the Chamber. Sir Charles said, in his speech to the RUSI before Christmas, that
we must ensure that nothing, I repeat nothing, damages the combat effectiveness of the British Armed Forces.
The Liberal Democrats agree with that. We support the Bill and oppose the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition because there is nothing in the Bill that would affect the effectiveness of our armed forces.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I do not always agree with most of what I hear from the Liberal Democrats; on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman referred to his fantasy about forming a Government. When he referred to that happening in 2005–06, I thought that he must have been thinking of 1905–06, as that would have been more relevant when one considers the prospects for his party. However, I agreed with many of the other comments from the hon. Gentleman.
I cannot understand why the Conservative party is proposing to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. It is made clear in the explanatory notes that, without the Bill, we could, in effect, cease to have a legal basis for our armed forces. Given our history going back to the time of the glorious revolution of 1688, when Parliament asserted its authority based on the Parliamentary victory in the civil war and subsequent developments, it seems strange that the Conservative party, which supposedly believes in our armed forces, is prepared to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill that would provide for their continuation.
I could understand an argument for abstaining on Second Reading, on the ground that there were aspects about which one was unhappy, which could be dealt with by tabling amendments in Committee However, to vote against the Bill seems typical of Billy's bandwagon, and of the way in which the Conservative party operates on all kinds of matters at present.
The Bill is in many respects concerned with tidying up, updating, and bringing into law statements that were made in previous years. However, it also contains a number of important provisions, some of which need greater attention.
I very much regret that, despite being a member of the Defence Committee currently involved in the personnel inquiry—during which I have gained a lot from talking to serving ratings, officers, engineers and others throughout the armed forces—I am unable to bring my expertise to the consideration of the Bill in Committee. That will also be the case for other members of the Select Committee. I concur strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—this is the first time that I have referred to him in that way—who expressed far more eloquently and powerfully than I can the frustration of Back-Bench Members of Parliament at the Executive simply determining how things are run.
That frustration about the way in which Front-Bench Members sometimes behave is shared by Back-Bench Members of all parties. I am not making a party political point. If one has expertise, knowledge, experience or an interest in a subject, those qualities should be used. It is a negation of parliamentary democracy and the role of Back Benchers if Committees are established and Members who have relevant knowledge and expertise are not appointed to them. That view was clearly shared by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who has had a similar experience. He is not here at the moment to nod, but I assume that he would if he were.
I welcome the proposals allowing warrant officers to act as courts martial members, which is long overdue. The proposals relating to drug testing are vital. The drug culture in society is becoming extremely serious. Only this week, the press has carried reports about police officers and cocaine. There have been reports about drugs in the media, and in other institutions of society. Given that the armed forces and their personnel reflect society as a whole—although to a lesser extent than some other institutions—it is undoubtedly the case that drugs, a growing problem, must be dealt with. The British armed forces cannot be regarded as the American armed forces were for many years, in terms of their relationship to drugs.
The Conservative Front-Bench team's approach to the recruitment of people to the armed forces is preposterous. If people with disabilities are prevented from taking up certain occupations, we can understand the arguments. For example, people still have to comply with certain requirements to join the Metropolitan police. A constituent of mine, a young Asian woman, desperately wishes to join the Metropolitan police, but because she marginally failed the eyesight test, that force will not accept her. She is devastated. We are crying out for officers from the ethnic minorities, and she would make an excellent police officer. She wants to do that job; she does not want to do anything else. The Met tells her she can be a civilian, but she wants to be a police officer.
The same applies to many people who wish to join our armed forces—those from ethnic minorities, those with disabilities, women, and those who have a desire to do something and yet, for one reason or another, do not meet the requirements. We should say to Sir Charles Guthrie that disabilities do not preclude people from doing things. Disabilities do not mean that people are incapable of doing things—just that in some respects, they make it


impossible. There is a question of balance, and lines will have to be drawn. There may well be people with some form of disability who could still play an excellent role in the armed services.
I have a specific example. My father was conscripted into the RAF. He was not allowed to be a pilot because he did not meet the eyesight requirements, but he was a radio operator in Burma. He did that job as a conscript. No one said that his failure to meet the eyesight requirements meant that he could not be conscripted into the RAF. Therefore, we need to consider these issues sensitively. It is not a question of all or nothing—it is not as if people must qualify to be a Royal Marine or nothing at all.
Another related matter has come out of the inquiries that the Select Committee on Defence carried out into personnel recruitment. I refer to the retention of people in the services. How do we ensure that people stay? We have discovered that recruitment offices sometimes give people the wrong impression about the kind of jobs that they will do. That leads to disillusionment—not only were the recruits not in the area that they expected, but they had been given the impression that they could transfer easily from one job to another and then found that they could not. That needs to be considered in the context of the future of the services. I shall not go further down that route otherwise I am sure that I will be ruled out of order.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to the Secretary of State's powers to make consequential or transitional provisions as he thinks fit. That would be outrageous if it applied to the Secretary of State alone. However, it is the same as everything else subject to the negative resolution procedure—that is made clear in paragraphs 122 and 123 of the explanatory notes. Such powers would be subject to the negative procedure and if that involved a change to primary legislation in a significant number of cases, the affirmative resolution would apply. I think that a mountain was made out of a molehill on that issue.
The serious issue here is to what extent the armed forces should reflect society. We ask a lot of them, whether their job is in Sierra Leone, Bosnia or Kosovo. They may serve as UN monitors for UNIKOM—the UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission—or with other international or United Nations forces. They may do the dangerous and difficult job that has been done for many years, and continues to be done, in Northern Ireland. Whatever they do, theirs is not an ordinary job. They cannot go home early on a Friday afternoon. It is a bit like the stupid hours that Members of Parliament work, but probably worse. They cannot read their children bedtime stories; they do not even see their families for months on end in certain cases. Yet we expect them to be moved at short notice. We expect ships to be redeployed after a tour of duty, when they are sent off again into the Mediterranean. The service people may expect to be at home in port for a few weeks or a few months when, at a few days notice, they are redeployed to Sierra Leone. It requires a special kind of person to put up with that, and a special kind of family. We need to give support to those individuals and their families. We need to give them the resources to make their life, while they are doing that job on our behalf, as comfortable as possible, taking account of the difficult circumstances and the reality.
That is why it is crucial, when disciplinary action is required and regulations have to be enforced, that service people do not have a sense of injustice. It has been said that society has changed. Young people today, as anyone of us with teenagers knows well, do not accept the automatic authority of their elders. Increasingly, people entering the armed services do not automatically accept that they must do something because someone tells them to. They want to know why.
With people talking generally about human rights, the armed services must have a code of conduct and disciplinary procedures that are carefully drafted to take into account those changes in society; otherwise we will find that people will not join the armed forces. They will not accept a value system that is totally alien to what they would experience in society. That is not to say that the armed forces are not different—they are, but they are also part of our society, as are the people who join them.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As I may have said to the House before, when I attended a reception after a Remembrance Sunday service in Aldershot a couple of years ago, I specifically asked some of the very young recently commissioned officers why they had joined the armed services. Their answer was that it was because they rejected some of the values of civilian society and embraced the very values that the hon. Gentleman suggests the services should abandon to make themselves more relevant to the civilian community. That is a very dangerous course of action.

Mr. Gapes: I am going on what I was told when I visited HMS Collingwood near Southampton as a member of the Defence Committee, on a personnel visit, just before Christmas. We talked for several hours with people of all ranks in the Royal Navy. They said unanimously that the attitude of new recruits has changed. Even young women in their early 20s said that the attitude was very different from what it had been when they were 17. That was their perception. Perhaps the people in Aldershot on Remembrance Sunday were different. The young people I spoke to came from many different parts of the United Kingdom. The feelings that they expressed to me were that the old values are important, but must nevertheless take into account changes in society as a whole. That is the essence of the matter.
That is why the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 was so important. I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with that legislation. We must recognise that we need to change not merely because of the legal judgments against the Government over the years, but because of the need to have armed forces that are relevant and in touch with society.

Mr. Keetch: On the fact that the armed services have moved on and changed so much in the past 10 to 20 years, senior serving soldiers and those from more junior ranks have told me that one reason why they like Defence Ministers and spokesmen who have no previous military experience is that they do not have the preconceptions that some older soldiers still have. That is no criticism of former serving Members.

Mr. Gapes: That may be true. I do not want to cast aspersions on individuals or praise others. Obviously, the quality of Ministers varies and they all have their unique


characteristics. We cannot over-generalise. The team that has been in place since 1997 has achieved the strategic defence review, coupled with its personnel aspects and obtained commitment from the top in the Ministry of Defence and from the Chief of the Defence Staff to recruit those from ethnic minorities, for example, which is very welcome.
A few weeks ago, there was an excellent exhibition on display in the Ministry of Defence to celebrate the role over 50 years of the ethnic minorities in the British armed forces. Relatives of people from the British Indian Army who had been awarded the Victoria Cross were there, as well as people from the Caribbean whose relatives had served with our forces in the 1940s. Some very elderly men and women were there as well as their children and grandchildren. For me, the exhibition was important because the Ministry of Defence and the Government were seriously attempting to tell everyone in our society, "You have a place in the British armed forces. We recognise your contribution and we will value it."
Unfortunately, the recruitment figures do not bear out the commitment. The Select Committee has seen the figures. The target of 5 per cent. is good, but it is unrealistic and will not be achieved. At present, we have a recruitment rate of about 1.3 or 1.4 per cent. in two of our services and about 1.7 per cent. in the third. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if my figures are wrong. Clearly, the message has not yet got through to society in general.
Young Asian men and women in my constituency, who are British born and educated, tell me that they do not want to go into the armed forces. They do not want to go into the police force or into the public services at all. They want to become lawyers and accountants, or to do media studies and become journalists. Few young people have the commitment to do public service and that reflects a wider problem—the value people place on public services, such as the armed forces, the police and even teaching and the health services. All those professions have the same problem. That is part of the legacy of 20 years of the Thatcherite undermining of public values and the public sector ethos. We have to change that. It is not merely a question of money, although that is important. Recruitment to the armed forces is a part of the problem.
Furthermore, as has been said, we must recognise that serving in the military today is probably more demanding and dangerous than it was when soldiers were parading up and down on the inner German border. At the height of the cold war, things were very stable. We did not have expeditionary forces in different parts of the world. There was no danger of being shot at by allegedly friendly Kosovans, or of suffering from malaria in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Keetch: What about Malaysia?

Mr. Gapes: There were exceptions, as the hon. Gentleman points out. Malaysia was not necessarily a comfortable place to be in the 1950s—nor was Korea. I was talking not about 1953, but the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes: In a moment.
Today, British forces are serving all over the world. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we now have a commitment that did not exist for us before the end

of the cold war. We did not take part in United Nations peacekeeping operations for a long time, but now all the members of the Security Council have people on the Iraq-Kuwait border as part of the monitoring mission—the Chinese, the Americans, the Russians, our people and the French are all there. When we visited, troops from 11 countries were serving together. That is part of the new ethos of co-operation and joint activities with other countries.
We must get that message across to young people. We must tell them that if they want not merely to travel the world but to meet and work with people from other countries and cultures in an environment where they are doing good, then joining the armed forces is a vital contribution that they can make.

Mr. Hancock: I endorse much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If all of what he has said is true, and he genuinely believes it, why are not people from ethnic communities taking up his offer of the good life in the armed forces? What is the impediment to their joining?

Mr. Gapes: It is partly a general economic problem. People can get far more money in the more fashionable jobs to which I referred. It is also due to a cultural lag. People's perceptions are based on bad stories in the media five or seven years ago. People from ethnic communities do not have older brothers or sisters in the forces. The same applies to working class cultures. White and black working class people will not, in general, join the police service due to the same sort of perceptions. I suspect that one of the main reasons why Catholics in Northern Ireland will not join the Royal Ulster Constabulary is cultural. It is not merely fear of IRA intimidation. Army recruitment figures are going up there—20 per cent. of applicants are now Catholics, whereas the percentage of Catholics serving in the RUC is much smaller.
All that will change and it is essential for the future of this country that it does. We need our role models. We need our British Colin Powells. We need people at the top from ethnic minorities who can act as a symbol and a role model for their communities and for society as a whole. That will come, but it will take time. The policies are in place and the commitment is there. We must spread that message throughout society. When that happens there will be a remarkable change but it may take some time.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is making a sincere contribution. He has already acknowledged that recruitment and retention is a problem in our armed forces. Does he accept, therefore, that the political correctness and the gross or excessive attention to bureaucracy and legislation on armed forces discipline may be one of the factors deterring some of our youngsters? After all, they join the armed forces for a sense of excitement. They are not interested in armed forces discipline Acts; they want to get out into the world and experience what is going on there.

Mr. Gapes: The simple answer is no. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about what he has said for a moment, he will realise that 17, 18 or even 22-year-olds are not particularly bothered about the wording of the armed forces discipline Acts when they decide to go to Army recruitment offices. Wider factors are involved;


the legislation is neither a deterrent, nor an encouragement. It is far more important that they are received warmly, given good advice and encouraged to talk to people already in the services so that they have a sense of being listened to and welcomed. That is the first step forward. However, they must have the commitment to reach that stage, and there are not yet sufficient numbers of people with that commitment.
I shall conclude by dealing with another issue. As a stepfather, I always welcome legislation that recognises that 6 million people live in step-families and that there are 2 million stepchildren in our society. Those are large numbers. The provisions in paragraph 31 of part VI of schedule 7, which will amend section 68 of the Marriage Act 1949, may seem modest, but they are symbolic. Frankly, it is long overdue that stepsons and stepdaughters of qualifying personnel can marry in service chapels. Is not it absurd that we have had to wait until the 21st century for that change?
Previously, the daughters of individuals in the services were eligible to marry in service chapels, but their sons were not. It seems crazy that it has taken so long to get to this point. People might imagine that the change might have been introduced in 1950, but it is 2001 and a lot of catching up has to be done. Many things should have been done many years ago. I hope that when we deal with the consolidated legislation in 2005, 2006 or whenever, we at least recognise that we must bring everything together so that we do not have to keep on going through a catch-up exercise. The regulations should take account of the realities of society.
Things have moved on and society is changing, and our armed forces and the legislation that underpins our democratically, parliamentary-controlled armed forces should reflect that fact. For that reason, I hope that the House will resoundingly vote to give the Bill a Second Reading and that, even at this late stage, the Conservatives will realise the absurdity of their position. I also hope that the Bill will act as a symbol, encouraging people to join and support our armed forces, which play such a vital role in international peace and security.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) always makes an original and thoughtful contribution, whether in the Chamber or in the Select Committee on Defence, of which he is a valued member. As members of that Committee, he and I are concerned about what we call the footprint—the place of our armed forces in the community—and the varying motivational factors that cause people to volunteer for the forces in the first place and to remain in them.
Recruitment and retention are two very different matters. People join the armed forces perhaps from a sense of adventure or because they wish to see the world. They may wish to participate in sport or adventurous pursuits, but later on—perhaps when they are married with children—they are much more concerned about the treatment of their families and their ability to see them as much as possible. Such matters are very important. That is why the study of personnel issues that the Defence Committee is currently carrying out is important and will produce significant results. That is one of the reasons why

I regret that none of the members of the Defence Committee have been proposed as members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. It would have been helpful to have the experience of individuals such as the hon. Member for Ilford, South and others on that Select Committee.
When I first joined the House, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members had served in the armed forces; they were often referred to as honourable and gallant Members. Their number is now comparatively modest, and we now value not only those who have served in the armed forces and who bring their experience to bear in the House, but those who have served on the armed forces scheme, which enables Members of Parliament to spend about 20 days with the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines, building up their experience of the armed forces. It is my experience that when individuals who have not previously served in the armed forces rub shoulders and spend time at close quarters with people in the armed forces, they are always greatly impressed, as is the Defence Committee, by the quality, determination, courage and sense of humour of those who serve in the armed forces. It is a privilege for those of us who are members of the Select Committee and others to meet those in the armed forces and to experience those qualities at close quarters.
Anyone looking at the 41 clauses and eight schedules in the Bill might think that it deals in detail with matters of military law and similar matters. Of course, it does, but to think that that is all that it does would be completely to misunderstand this potentially dramatic Bill. The hon. Member for Ilford, South referred to the glorious revolution of 1688, but I would go back to Charles I, James I and Elizabeth I, who had to call Parliament, although they did not want to do so, because they wanted the money to fight their wars or the authority to maintain a standing army.
The Bill is a crucial part of parliamentary procedure because clause 1 states that Her Majesty may from time to time provide for the military Acts to continue and that, effectively, the Government may maintain a standing army. Such a Bill is put before the House once every five years and authorises the House of Commons, through an Order in Council, to continue the standing army. The quinquennial Bill is central to our parliamentary privileges; without it, there would be no Army. That gives immense power to that Select Committee.
The current procedure, which was set up in 1952, allows the service discipline Acts to continue under the auspices of the quinquennial Act, which goes to the root of our democracy. It enables the House to consider every aspect of military activity, so it is not just related to military law and discipline. For example, I chaired the Standing Committees that considered the 1986 and 1996 Bills. The 1996 Bill dealt significantly with homosexuality, which was the centre of media interest in that Bill, yet there was no reference to homosexuality in the 1986 Bill. The Standing Committee is entitled to consider every aspect of military activity and effectively to hold the Government to ransom on such issues, if it so wishes. That is its constitutional importance.
It is important that the Government should treat the House with appropriate respect in this as in other matters. To deal with a matter briefly in parenthesis, I regret that senior Ministers often do not attend debates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to attend an important


debate on the economy. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions failed to attend a debate on transport, giving as his reason, through a junior Minister, the fact that he was dealing with transport matters. Ministers should regard the House of Commons as being central to their own responsibilities.
Although it is not unprecedented for the Secretary of State for Defence not to be present when these important Bills come before the House every five years, it is my memory that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—my boss when he was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—was always courteous when he was Secretary of State for Defence, and attended the House whenever he could when a junior Minister was taking through legislation. It is always regrettable when the relevant Cabinet Minister is not on the Front Bench for an important piece of legislation. It is a courtesy to the House, and an important part of parliamentary privilege, that Cabinet Ministers should regard this place as sufficiently important to attend it on such occasions. However, that is not how this Government treat Parliament.
I want to consider in detail the difference between an ordinary Select Committee and the Select Committee that considers the Armed Forces Bill. The Select Committee on the Bill has it in its power to say to the Government, "No, you cannot have legislation to maintain the standing forces unless a point of detail that concerns us is clarified."
I am a member of the so-called quadripartite Committee, which is potentially the most important Committee that the House has created for several years—a joint Committee of the Select Committees on Defence, on Foreign Affairs, on International Development and on Trade and Industry. It sits to consider strategic export controls, and has done so for some time. Let me give an example of the way in which the quadripartite Committee reports and the way in which the Government deal with its reports. Paragraph 2 of a Government response to the 11th report of the Defence Committee, the seventh report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the seventh report of the International Development Committee and the 11th report of the Trade and Industry Committee considers open individual export licences. The quadripartite Committee stated:
We conclude that it was an error of judgement to have granted several Military List open individual export licences in late 1998 and early 1999 covering Zimbabwe.
What was the Government's response to that considered view? They said:
The Government does not accept that the inclusion of Zimbabwe as a permitted destination on a small number of Military List open individual export licences issued in late 1998 and early 1999 represented an error of judgement.
They did not agree with the Committee—end of story. There was nothing much else that the quadripartite Committee could do.
The major conclusion reached by the Committee appears at paragraph 24 of the Government response and it should ring through the corridors of Whitehall. It was pretty authoritative stuff. The Committee concluded:
The four Select Committees that make up the Quadripartite Committee have concluded that strategic exports by their very nature justify the establishment of a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny, and that such a system should be put in place forthwith.

That is a pretty comprehensive and concrete judgment. The Government responded:
The Government has given careful consideration to the Committees' recommendations on prior Parliamentary scrutiny of all the 12,000 or so individual export licence applications for military and dual use goods received each year. The Government has concluded that they could not be made to work without causing significant damage to the competitiveness of UK exports and without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing system.
We then had the most wonderful piece of Whitehall gobbledegook—I defy anyone to explain exactly what it means. The Government continued:
Involvement of the Committees in the taking of decisions under the existing legislative powers is in any event problematic, in that an extra element would be introduced into the process. This might generate doubt as to whether the decision had been properly taken in accordance with the powers conferred by Parliament.
I just do not know what that means, but it is the Government's response to the considered conclusion of the quadripartite Committee.

Mr. Blunt: May I offer a suggestion to my hon. Friend? The final paragraph means that the Government think that parliamentarians are unable to understand what Parliament wants.

Mr. Viggers: Yes, that would figure; it is certainly not inconsistent with my interpretation.
Let us contrast that case with what happened to the Armed Forces Act 1996, section 26 of which gives the Minister power to grant a long lease to the Royal hospital at Greenwich. The Select Committee considering that Bill was concerned that Greenwich, with its unique architectural, historical and traditional values, should not be passed over to inappropriate use. The original clause certainly protected Greenwich against inappropriate architectural use, but the Select Committee took evidence in Greenwich and we agreed with local opinion, which was reinforced by those with national views on the subject of architectural heritage, that there should be extra protection for Greenwich. We decided that we wanted to make it clear to the Government that we would not pass the Bill unless the future of the hospital was not only consistent with its architectural heritage, but with its maritime and cultural traditions.
I remember that the Select Committee concluded that some uses could be entirely consistent with the architectural heritage of Greenwich but would not be appropriate in relation to its cultural heritage. For example, we all have the highest regard for McDonald's, the fast-food chain. Hypothetically, it might conceivably decide that it wished to take over the site and make it into a hamburger university—and I believe that the company already runs such a university. However, the Select Committee thought that it would be entirely inconsistent for a fast-food chain to take over Greenwich, since although it might maintain the architectural heritage, it would not be appropriate to the area's maritime tradition.
I remember discussions with Ministers. The issue was discussed on the Floor of the House and in Committee—and I recall one discussion that took place in the voting Lobby. It was not exactly a quiet discussion; it delayed the Division because good strong military language was used. I made it clear to Ministers that we were not prepared to accept the clause unless it was amended, so the Government had to change it.
The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill has enormous powers—if it chooses to use them—that the Select Committee on Defence does not have. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the hon. Member for Ilford, South and other members of the Defence Committee all know that, when we produce our reports, they may have some influence: they will be read in certain circles; certain parts of them may be picked up by the media; and they may have some effect in promoting thinking about personnel issues in the armed forces. However, we have no absolutely no power, and the Government therefore give us a bland response. They thank us for our interesting report, but we have no power to enforce any of the recommendations that we make. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is different. It has real bargaining power if it chooses to use it.
Who has been selected for the Select Committee on the Bill? Will it include members of the Defence Committee? The proposal suggests that it will not, so people who would have brought much-needed knowledge to the issue and would have given the Committee teeth with which to impose its thoughts will not be represented.
What should the Standing Committee on the Bill consider? Of course it will consider the Bill's 41 clauses and eight schedules, but it is clear that it will have complete power to refuse to pass the provision for standing forces. The Standing Committee has a wide-ranging mandate and can consider anything that it wishes.
If the Select Committee on the Bill has teeth as well as influence, with what issues should we be concerned? We should be concerned about the pensions of armed forces personnel. The Select Committee on Defence recently heard representations from the Officers Pensions Society, which represents all members of the armed forces—officers, other ranks and pensioners. We recognise that there is a problem with pensions—a so-called trough. Pensioners who retired in 1977 at, for example, the level of major, are getting about £1,500 a year less than someone who retired when armed forces salaries were higher. It is within the mandate of the Select Committee to consider that trough and require the Government to do something about it.
As the chairman of a pension fund in my spare time, I believe that a private sector pension fund would attempt to do something about the trough, but the public sector has failed to act. If the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill has teeth and power, it will be able to hold Ministers to account and try to force them to do what Governments have not done for many years. Many service personnel in our constituencies plead with us to do something, but individual Members of Parliament do not have the necessary power. However, that Committee has the power to hold the Government to account on the old-fashioned principle of supply and can ask the Government to give it what it wants or refuse to agree to the Bill.
The Defence Committee has also been concerned about Gulf war syndrome, but it has been difficult to get facts and information out of the Government on that matter. We now have the issue of depleted uranium. There would be no difficulty getting such information if we had the teeth that are possessed by the Select Committee on the

Bill. Members of Parliament should be concerned about medical issues in general. I know that I am back on my hobby-horse of defence medical services, but once every five years, when a Bill is before the House, we have the opportunity to refuse supply to the Government until we are satisfied that they are doing what we think is right.
Members of the Defence Committee and others are deeply concerned that more than 15,000 service personnel have been medically downgraded for more than a month. More than 9,000 members—nearly 10 per cent.—of the Army have been medically downgraded for more than a month. When members of the Committee asked witnesses about medical downgrading and the number of service personnel who an unfit, we were told that they would write to us. That was about four to six weeks ago, and we still have not received a letter. However, if we were members of the Select Committee on the Bill, we could make those witnesses tell us what is happening in the armed forces and why so many personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are unfit.

Mr. Key: As a veteran of the Defence Committee and the previous Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, my hon. Friend can rest assured that the issues will not be neglected as far as I am concerned. However, the composition of the Select Committee poses a difficulty. When my hon. Friend was its Chairman, a Minister would turn up with his parliamentary private secretary when he needed to be present. There were no Whips, merely Back Benchers. That was a different proposition. Having given the Government the benefit of the doubt—I am being charitable—on defence medical services in general and Haslar in particular, we are extremely restless that the Government have not tackled the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a golden opportunity to pursue the whole matter of defence medical services?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, he should note that we are straying wide of the Bill's contents. I remind him and the House that another debate later on will deal specifically with the Committee.

Mr. Viggers: Indeed, but clause 1 continues the services Acts. The Bill constitutes our one opportunity in five years to challenge the Government on all military issues. I am sun that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is within the Bill's remit. I take your point, but I just want to say that defence medical services are in crisis. That has been exacerbated by the decision to close Haslar. The Select Committee on the Bill should ask how many deployable consultants there are in the crucial grades of general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, anaesthetics and general medicine. I want the record to show that there will be a disaster if the Government continue with their plans on defence medical services.
The Select Committee on the Bill has the power to force answers from the Government and to insist on changes of policy. That should be compared with the powers of an ordinary Member of Parliament. I tabled questions for priority answer in July 2000. Those answers should be given within 48 hours, but I received the replies at the end of November. It is a profound worry that we have failed to get proper national concern about the crisis in defence medical services.
I would be ruled out of order if I dwelled on the proposed Committee, but zero out of its 10 members have been members of the Defence Committee and zero out of the 10 have experience of the armed forces. The Government have gone too far in abusing Parliament by proposing that their representation on the Committee should comprise two Ministers, two parliamentary private secretaries, a Whip and one Labour Back Bencher. The detail of the Bill has forced the Opposition to respond with two Front Benchers and a Whip.
I have one or two comments to make about the Bill's detail. I recognise that it is appropriate for warrant officers to serve as members of courts martial, but the Bill contains a mistake. I wonder whether it is similar to the mistake that was made by the parliamentary draftsman in 1996 who authorised the taking of fingerprints. It took the hon. Member for Gosport to explain that if the Government were authorising fingerprints, they should also authorise DNA samples. That was later rectified. The quinquennial mistake in this Bill is that it is drafted to allow warrant officers in the Navy to serve on courts martial, whereas if they are promoted to sub-lieutenant, they cannot serve on a court martial until they rise to the rank of lieutenant or above. That is clearly an error and it is what the hon. Member for Gosport tips as the quinquennial mistake in this Bill.
It is disturbing that the Government promised in 1991 that they would consolidate as soon as possible. That promise was repeated in 1996, but here we are, in 2001, and they are still promising to consolidate as soon as possible. Despite the fact that the Army, Navy and Air Force are moving closer together in all other ways, the lack of consolidation means that the Bill devotes pages to each of those forces and we have to read everything in triplicate. Now that members of the three forces are serving more closely together, it must be possible to co-ordinate their legal procedures. Otherwise, people who serve side by side in aircraft, hospitals or even in trenches will be subject to the detail of different laws.
When the 1996 Bill was in Standing Committee, I was meticulously careful to ensure that the Commission for Racial Equality would undertake to have a report on progress in racial equality ready in time for the Committee on this Bill. I have only one question for the Minister. Will he confirm what was confirmed to me by the CRE when its representatives appeared before the Defence Committee a few weeks ago—that its report on progress in promoting greater recruitment and retention of members of the ethnic minorities would be ready for the Committee? I hope that the CRE is on schedule, and the report will be ready in time for the Committee to consider its decisions.
I wish to raise another point of detail, which I also referred to during the Second Reading and Committee stages of the 1986 and 1996 Bills. I represent a naval constituency, so I am pleased that it will be possible for royal naval officers to be subject to summary jurisdiction, and not only to courts martial legislation. I have always thought it demeaning and degrading for an officer to be dealt with by a court martial when charged with hazarding his ship, perhaps for reasons of expediency or after encountering difficulties at a certain time. Hazarding usually results from momentary uncertainty or indecision, and it has always seemed to me to be wrong that the ponderous courts martial procedure should be invoked. I assume that it will be possible to establish a much simpler summary jurisdiction procedure.
As to the point about the Ministry of Defence police, I am concerned that the detail may not have been fully considered. I am pleased and grateful to have had the occasional chance to spend time with the police force in my constituency on Friday evenings, and my experience is that police procedures derive not from a passing policeman noticing a burglary, but from meticulous planning and briefing. It is strange that the MOD police will be able to operate in a civilian sphere even though nothing in the Bill promotes the training or the briefing of officers for a civilian role. The Select Committee will want to pursue that point.
The Conservative Government were in power for 18 years and police numbers increased by 15,400, but in three years of Labour government we have lost 2,995 policemen. Indeed, only yesterday the chief constable of Hampshire asked me to exercise what influence I could to promote the recruitment and retention of police officers in the county, about which he is deeply concerned.
I regret that this important Bill is not likely to receive detailed scrutiny and that the Government have gone too far in appointing their own people to the Committee.

Ms Dari Taylor: The Bill is complex and detailed, and having no military experience ensures that I feel wary about contributing tonight. However, I have great pleasure in telling the House that I was, for only 30 minutes, an Air Vice-Marshal. When I visited the Royal United Services Institute, I was told to put on a name badge. I did so. I was embarrassed to be one of only three women there; the others were the receptionist and another member of the Defence Committee. I felt that all those present had great knowledge and that I was probably considered to have little. My embarrassment ensured that I simply picked up a name badge and put it on.
I was spoken to warmly by defence attachés from Holland and other European countries. Then I was told that I was wearing a badge that was not my own. To be dead straight with the House, I did not know what to do, but hon. Members will appreciate that I shall always remember the pleasure of being an Air Vice-Marshal for 30 minutes.
It is well known in the House that I have great respect for the armed forces. I was briefly a member of the Defence Committee, which was a great pleasure, and I was presented with a serious learning curve. I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee that will consider the detail of the Bill, and that alone persuaded me to speak. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is about to pull me back into line, but I hope that the motion on the Select Committee will be supported later this evening.
As so many hon. Members have said, we in Britain are privileged to have a high-quality professional Army, and the nation acknowledges that. Again and again, the armed forces, with their readiness to undertake at short notice anything from civil tasks to war fighting, prove that we are privileged to have them, and their performance in those roles is excellent.
The British armed forces are often asked to perform miracles and we must all acknowledge that they face moral and physical challenges of which the majority of the population are unaware. In future, as at present, they will have to fulfil operational needs and requirements in


conflict areas. They are asked to become involved without knowing who the state parties are and to operate independently or in conjunction with other state forces. They face asymmetric threats and often know that those threats focus on people's perceived vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
The armed forces of today are well aware that public opinion is very much opposed to casualties being incurred, although we ask them to go into battle, fight for us, defend us and behave in the best and most professional manner. That is a serious request. I believe that the armed forces will be required more and more in the 21st century and will increasingly have to display miraculous powers. I hope that all Members of the House will do everything they can to ensure that such miracles become a reality.
The Bill will introduce appropriate technical and evolutionary changes and its complex detail will ensure that there is no room for gesture politics. To my mind, it does not include political correctness. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) refer to his belief that political correctness was a prime and motive force in the Bill. The European convention on human rights is of paramount value in each and every situation. It does not influence or undermine the activities of the armed forces. Quite the reverse: it empowers people and ensures that the armed forces are effective and disciplined. They know how to behave and their judgments are much more secure because they know that the convention is one of their benchmarks.
The House has heard me say many times that women have a right to serve. I have no right to tell women to serve, nor do I have a right to persuade them to serve on the front line, but I believe that if women are capable of serving, no one should tell them that they have no right to be involved in certain roles in the armed forces. I am delighted that work is being done to secure a greater and more determined involvement for women. Much of the Bill is detailed. It will establish processes and structures—a disciplined framework—that will achieve a more open, clear and fair operational system. It will deliver fair, well-balanced and disciplined judgments within and for the armed forces. None of us should equivocate about that or see it as problematic.
When we deal with military discipline, we should be concerned if there are problems. There will be a problem if we do not believe that everyone's human rights are absolute and unquestionable. Much of the detail of the Bill outlines fair treatment, open judgment and open governance. The European convention on human rights should consistently inform the structures and practices of military discipline and its judicial system. I am disturbed that the hon. Member for Salisbury believes the reverse and stated in the House that the convention would be sidestepped when and if—I emphasise the word "if"—the Conservative party is ever returned to government.
The European convention on human rights is a discipline for all of us—a known discipline. Its strength of purpose derives from the fact that it is known, it does not equivocate and it treats people equally and fairly. I find it strikingly disturbing that the House should question the convention's application to the armed forces.
I was uncomfortable when I read the Conservative amendment, which states that there is a
creeping advance of litigation that will breed a cautious group of military leaders who may step back from courageous decisions for fear of being pursued through the courts.
That is tosh, as the entire House knows.

Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. That is a direct quote from the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Ms Taylor: I am sure that the Chief of the Defence Staff did not say that that was tosh—[HON. MEMBERS: "You said that it was tosh."] Indeed, and I believe that I am right to say that the statement made by those on the Conservative Front Bench is tosh. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has complimented the Bill, I am equally sure that he will consider the statement to be tosh.

Mr. Key: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood. The words that she quoted from our reasoned amendment were a direct quoted from the Chief of the Defence Staff. Those were his words.

Ms Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has also misunderstood. When one only part-quotes, one only part-states what the person said.
The Bill defines a commitment to retain the fundamentals of the way in which the armed forces administer justice. I regard that as crucial. It is no less crucial that Ministers and their researchers acknowledge that there are concerns about some of the structures and some of the activities, and that they propose operational remedies. Those remedies should invoke the European convention on human rights, which states clearly that all public authorities should act in a way that is compatible with the framework and principles of the convention.
The Bill deals with the way in which the armed forces operationalise investigations. I was surprised that that is virtually under the command of the commanding officer, who has inherent powers. It is important that that is being questioned and challenged. I do not have a problem with the commanding officer's involvement in the process, but I find it highly problematic that he should have exclusive rights. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 will replace the inherent powers, clarify the rules of search, entry and seizure and put the process on a statutory footing. That is valuable.
If we want people to give of their best in the armed forces, they should know that those who exercise power and those who subject them to that power are clear about the limits of their power and the safeguards that apply to the exercise of that power. That is inviolable and should always have applied.
I welcome many parts of the Bill, such as the inclusion of warrant officers in court martial membership, which is long overdue. I also welcome the section on drug and alcohol testing. My hon. Friends have spoken about the problems that we face in our communities with regard to drug and alcohol use. It is vital that the armed forces confront the issue and implement effective testing. I was pleased to see the changes to the Marriage Act 1949, which are profound and long overdue.
The comments of the hon. Member for Salisbury about women were disappointing. When one makes critical statements, one should recognise the research that is


being done. I would have appreciated it if the hon. Gentleman had included in his remarks the words of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which are summarised in one of the research papers from the Library. On recruitment and selection, the paper refers to
the need to end the ban on combat exclusion and attract more women,
and on retention, the paper mentions
the need to change the culture of the Armed Services so that more women can enjoy a career in the Armed Services.
Those aspects are seen as key to effective recruitment and retention. If one speaks about one, it is a shame not to mention the other. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) told the House how effective many women are in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. I believe that that can be extended to the Army. I anticipate that, before long, not just 77 per cent. of all positions will be available to them if they have the right qualities, but 100 per cent. That is long overdue.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I do not necessarily oppose what the hon. Lady says, but would she care to acknowledge that, in testimony to the Defence Committee, the Equal Opportunities Commission readily accepted that, when women apply for posts in the armed services, they must meet objective standards of performance, and that standards must lot be lowered in order to enable them to take up posts? On that basis, there can be some sort of convergence across the Chamber on the issue.

Ms Taylor: I most certainly agree with all of that.
I passionately believe that everyone should be able to give what he or she has to give, and women believe that they should have the right to serve in the armed forces. A woman who does not have operational competence should not be given, or considered for, a particular role, but that is equally true of any male who wants to join the armed forces. My commitment, and it is total, to women being given an opportunity to serve is based on my belief that rights are inviolable. If they are not, they are not rights. Rights cannot be given to some and not to others, especially one as basic as the right to serve in the armed forces.
I was seriously disappointed by contributions from Opposition Members. Only time will tell. In time, people will be converted. They will be convinced that women not only have a right to be on the front line but can function there as effectively and valiantly as any man.
I echo the points made by many hon. Members today about the recruitment of ethnic minorities. That is a serious problem, which we should all be more than keen to address. Their recruitment is at a seriously low level. The House has been told today that they face a cultural lag, that they do not feel included. That is probably the appropriate explanation, but I find it difficult to accept. The British Army was a powerful force in India, so why cannot we link the greatness and grandness of the British Army with the ethnic groups who have served it so valiantly? The Gurkhas were and are part of our force structure. Why on earth are we not using those people to persuade our ethnic groups to become a part of our armed services? Image is crucial here. When I speak to schools

and ethnic groups in my constituency there is clearly a disjuncture between the role of ethnic groups in civil society and in the armed forces.

Mr. Key: I wholly support what the hon. Lady has just said. We pursued that matter in the previous Quinquennial Bill. Some of us took evidence from the Sikh community. The British Army has had wonderful Sikh regiments—not only the Indian army, but the British Army as well. We sought advice from the Commission for Racial Equality, but we were told that such ideas are old hat, that things are not like that any more, and that ethnic minorities should be wholly integrated into the regular regiments of the British Army and the other services. Therefore, to have separate Sikh regiments, for example, would not be appropriate. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should have another look at that?

Ms Taylor: That is an important point with which I think I agree. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not say, "No way." We have a serious problem here, and it is not one for political bat and ball games. We must see why the engagement is not there and persuade the ethnic minorities to come on board.
I have virtually come to an end, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have great pleasure in saying how pleased I am to see you in the Chair. Congratulations. However I am disappointed to have to end on a down note. This is an excellent Bill which we shall debate heartily and with determination and integrity in Committee, but I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, who has been a close friend of mine since I entered the House, deprecate the Committee's composition. He has every right to make his comments to the House this evening and I hope that, if all goes well, I shall be a member of the Committee. I am most certainly a woman who fights her corner with integrity and determination. I have no intention of not letting the Back-Bench voice be heard.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), with whom I shared an enjoyable two years on the Select Committee on Defence. It was a great sadness that she moved on; indeed, it was something of a sadness for me to move on only a year after her. However, I hope that I am broadening my knowledge by my service to the House on another Select Committee.
I do not immediately want to follow the hon. Lady down the path that she trod because I fundamentally disagree with her on several matters, which I shall pick up on later in my remarks. First, however, I want to comment on the welcome reiteration of the Opposition's commitment to put right the deleterious effects of the European convention on human rights on our armed forces by extracting them from the ambit of the convention. That commitment was explicitly made explicit, and I welcome it. The only way to achieve it is to denounce the treaty, immediately reapply, and then get the reservation that we require for the armed forces. Countries such as France, which joined in 1974–23 years after the United Kingdom—have such a reservation. In 1951, however, it could never have been anticipated that


the convention would have such an effect on our armed forces. We would certainly have taken a reservation then if we knew then what we know now.

Mr. Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it is right to put one's life in harm's way to defend people's human rights and their position in the world, while not having those rights oneself? He would deny that to the armed forces of this country. He relishes the opportunity to take those rights away from men and women whom we regularly expect to put their lives on their line to defend the same rights for others.

Mr. Blunt: The House, and especially the Government, have a responsibility to ensure that those rights can be defended effectively. There is no point standing up for those rights and defending them in action if we then diminish the quality of the armed forces, which, in the end, are the vehicle by which we will defend the rights that we have fought for and defended for hundreds of years, both in the House and elsewhere. The idea that we will allow a body of law to be created, under the convention by the European Court of Human Rights, which will undermine our ability to defend rights that the House holds dear for our country is ridiculous. I am sure that a few moments' contemplation of exactly what he is asking for will cause the hon. Gentleman to reflect further.
It is for the House and our Government, discharging their responsibilities as Ministers of the Queen and part of the chain of command for the armed forces, to ensure that our armed forces are dealt with fairly under the law. I believe that, by and large, those duties have been discharged fairly. When there have been cases in which service men have been treated unfairly by the system, Members of Parliament have been the first to champion their cause. For example, the support that I gave to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) in his calls concerning Major Stankovich is a case in point. Some Labour Members would have championed the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who has just joined the House. I would not have joined them, but that is another case in point. The rights of the armed forces can and should be protected here. We should not put at risk the fighting ability and the military effectiveness of our armed forces in order to defend the rights that we seek to defend in this House.

Mr. Hancock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He does justice to the calls that many hon. Members have made on behalf of members of the armed forces. However, the truth is that no matter how good a case has been made in the House, none of those people has ever got the justice that he deserved. They did not have the protection of the law behind them. Many people who have suffered hideous accidents through no fault of their own have been unable to get compensation. Surely the hon. Gentleman can give the House some examples of where having the Human Rights Act 1998 in operation would deter the British armed forces from doing their job properly? One example, please.

Mr. Blunt: There will never be perfect administration of justice across the board, whether at European or United Kingdom level. I happen to have confidence in the

institutions of the United Kingdom—that is, while we still have them. Our nation will be in some peril if it has the misfortune to re-elect the Government, but I hope that that will not happen. There is no reason why United Kingdom institutions cannot protect the rights of our service men any better or worse than measures at the European level. I have confidence that they will provide such protection.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) had an interesting discussion. Does my hon. Friend accept that there must be a balance between giving service men rights and discipline? If we get the balance wrong, discipline could be prejudiced in our armed forces, thereby ensuring that their effectiveness is not as great as it should be.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes the point eloquently. I shall detail—the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South asked me to do so—some of the cases in which the European convention on human rights affected or is affecting the military effectiveness of our armed forces.
The convention is posing a genuine problem. It underlay the Government's reasons for introducing the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, part I of which contained changes in custody that were driven by a particular case. I think that it was the Hood case in the European Court of Human Rights that drove all the changes in custody procedures for the armed forces. I believe that the soldier in the case had absconded four times before claiming that he was put in custody improperly. It would be nothing other than absurd to suggest that he should have won his case, but he did. We then had to change the custody requirements of our armed forces when there was no practical case to suggest that that should happen.
Those provisions were driven by a particular convention case. The rest of the Act, however, was driven not by a case that came before the European Court of Human Rights, but by fear of what might happen there. We imposed enormous damage on our armed forces by introducing the Act, elements of which led to the establishment of the summary appeal court, which has now been in place for three months. Not only has the court cost about a battalion's worth of salary because of the extra lawyers and staff who are required to make the thing work, but it is already having a deleterious effect on the armed forces in operation.

Dr. Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend has so far spoken about the effects, anticipated and otherwise, of the European convention on human rights on the armed forces in peacetime. What does he think the convention's effects will be in conditions of war? In those conditions, serving members of the armed forces who think that their inalienable human rights have been wronged will have no practical capability to go running to court, because the country will supposedly be fighting for its survival.

Mr. Blunt: I must correct my hon. Friend, as derogation from the convention can be obtained for the armed forces in wartime. The convention applies in peacetime and in military operations short of war. The latter is the sort of military activity in which we have engaged since 1945, and since 1951 no Government have sought to achieve a derogation for the armed forces.
The Under-Secretary wrote to me after Second Reading of the Bill that became the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. I asked how many of the cases dealt with summarily by subordinate commanders and commanding officers would go to appeal. The hon. Gentleman's letter stated that of the 24,000 cases dealt with summarily,
18,000 were dealt with by subordinate commanders. The assessment that in future these are unlikely to lead to many appeals is because of the limited powers of punishment available to company and squadron commanders.
I have news for the Minister. In my old regiment, the first case taken to the summary appeal court was dealt with by a squadron leader—a subordinate commander—and the punishment was as severe as two days' restriction of privileges. I do not know whether the Minister has the facts at his fingertips, but we are talking about three months of operation. How many appeals have taken place, at the very beginning of the system?
I wonder whether, once soldiers, sailors and airmen cotton on to the fact that the appeal is a "free hit", given that the punishment can only be reduced and cannot be increased, the rather complacent analysis in the Minister's letter to me of 25 February 2000 will prove to be a little awry in practice. I know from the limited amount of research that I have been able to conduct, talking to friends in the services, that a number of cases submitted for summary jurisdiction have been appealed. I have yet to learn what percentage of cases will eventually be appealed.
We should bear in mind the effect of the appeal court on the summary justice system. It used to serve as a fast and effective way of dispensing justice at unit level; now it takes a commanding officer, an adjutant and a chief clerk about an hour to prepare each case. Only members of the services will recognise the burden that that places on the chain of command in the administration of discipline.
We had a system that operated swiftly, which was seen to operate fairly and was respected for doing so, and which allowed for appeal to a court martial by those who did not wish to accept the commanding officer's award. That system has now been made very bureaucratic so that it can survive the summary appeal process, during which lawyers crawl over the evidence to be presented.

Mr. Hancock: rose—

Mr. Blunt: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make progress.
In three months, last year's Act has already led to a wholly different approach to the administration of justice in the services at unit level—something that we were promised would not happen. Let us consider the provisions relating to powers of entry, search and seizure. The explanatory notes explain the reason for those powers, stating:
It is also intended to provide greater certainty and, by providing that extra certainty and independent legal supervision of applications for permission to search, to avoid the risk of a successful challenge to searches being made under the European Convention on Human Rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) mentioned room inspections. At present, a commanding officer has what are described as "inherent powers", which the Bill will replace with statutory powers. What

effect will that have on administration within a unit? A soldier will say, "Hang on a minute; I do not want my room to be inspected." If he stands his ground, and if we do not continue to rely on the commanding officer's inherent powers, the commanding officer will not be able to inspect service accommodation because he is not a policeman.
The Minister will say that the Bill is not intended to have that effect—that it is not intended to make such a change in the standard of administration of military discipline within units. We understand that it is not meant to do that, but there is a serious risk that, by moving from the inherent powers of the commanding officer to statutory powers designed to withstand the European convention on human rights, it will have precisely that effect. Why are we taking risks with the administration of justice and discipline within the armed forces? It is because we are frightened of the convention. We must extricate the administration of military discipline and justice and the administration of the services from the convention.
We must ask: when is an inspection not a search? Of course, there are difficult balances to be struck in a modern Army. Commanders seek to respect a single service man's privacy and accommodation. Their attitude to the administration of single soldier's accommodation is rather more modern than decades ago, but 18, 19, 20 or 21-year-old young men and women are not, naturally, the tidiest beasts in the world.
Within the whole area of room inspections and the administration of military accommodation within lines, there is an amount of training in personal administration and discipline and that needs to be protected. It is for commanding officers of modern Army units, naval units and Air Force units to make those judgments. The Bill will take away from commanding officers that discretion in judging how best to administer their units.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised the issue of clause 33 and the wide powers that it gives. I do not entirely understand the need for the clause. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that in his winding-up speech. Under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 and section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, all civil offences are de facto military offences. There is effectively a catch-all section in those Acts, so there is nothing in the argument—if that is what the Government are advancing—that clause 33 is needed to ensure that service men are subject to the same civil laws as everyone else. It is already there in the Acts, even in their unconsolidated form. As I understand it, the only argument is about the administration of civil law within the military.
It seems odd for the Government to say in the explanatory notes that the reason why clause 33 is required is because
differences can exist for a considerable period before an opportunity to make the relevant amendments of Service law arises
in the quinquennial Acts. The services have been able to rub along for quite a long time with wholly different laws, with an Air Force Act, an Army Act and a Naval Discipline Act.
In this increasingly purple age, the Government are putting such a priority on consolidation that we will not see a consolidated Bill until 2005. The Minister for the Armed Forces even suggested that legislative scrutiny


would not be possible; it would not be possible to publish the Bill in time before the Quinquennial Act. I hope that I have misinterpreted his remark and that the consolidated draft Bill will be published some time in 2004 to allow a proper period of pre-legislative scrutiny of what will be quite complicated legislation, bringing the three Acts together.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right to press the Minister on the need for clause 33. On a quick reading of it, it seems that, by secondary legislation, the Minister can bring UK law into line with ECHR law. I suspect that the reason for the clause is that if we have an ECHR case, it will be easy for the Minister, by secondary legislation, to bring our law into line with ECHR law and to make it compliant, without having to introduce before Parliament a new armed forces discipline Bill.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend has again put his finger on the real concern. The clause gives the Secretary of State widespread powers for change to avoid proper scrutiny by the House. That is something that we should avoid. If the price for avoiding that is that the armed forces have to wait a maximum period of five years before they can consolidate a degree of administration of justice, while service personnel are forced to remain subject to the same laws as everyone else under sections 70 and 42 respectively of their own Acts, it is a price well worth paying. I suspect that a different agenda is being played out.
The Bill has welcome elements. The continuance of the Acts is necessary under part I and I welcome the fact that royal naval officers are to be brought within the remit of summary jurisdiction. However, I have to question why it is necessary to bring lieutenant commanders and wing commanders within the ambit of summary justice. Officers of that rank and seniority should be regarded as worthy of the greatest possible respect. It is the rank that, typically, commands units of the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force. One has to ask, if summary justice is good enough for lieutenant commanders, why not apply it to brigadiers and generals?
The armed forces have struck the right balance so far by applying summary justice to the rank of major and its equivalent. I hope that in Committee the Government will consider amendments on that point. If I am unlucky enough not to defeat the motion on Committee membership, I will not be able to serve on the Committee, and if such amendments are not aired before, I shall table them on Report. I do not believe that we should raise the rank structure in the other two services to meet some requirement of the Navy. I do not understand the requirement driving the provision to apply to the rank of commander in the Navy and I should be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.
I am somewhat agnostic about whether warrant officers should be able to sit on courts martial. There will be occasions when they can bring experience to a court martial and they may well be able to spread the burden of manning them more widely because courts martial can be time consuming. However, warrant officers will need to be selected with care. There are warrant officers who are good at their jobs but may not have the intellectual firepower to cope with sitting on a court martial. Of course, there are educational requirements and tests to

reach the rank of warrant officer, but as an ex-serving soldier I hoist that as an issue that needs to be addressed. The selection of people to serve on courts martial cannot be done randomly; it needs to be undertaken carefully. I do not mean to be derogatory, but there will have to be caution in the same way as one would be cautious about choosing junior officers to serve.
There are other provisions in the Bill that appear to have merit, but they need careful scrutiny. I am sorry that I will not have an opportunity to help scrutinise the Bill in Committee, but that subject can be debated at length later—and I fully intend to do so. The handling of the Select Committee procedure has been disgraceful and will also be pursued later.
The Bill will need careful scrutiny. Ministers guiding it through Committee will have to be flexible when it comes to amendments. They will have to be much more flexible than they were during Committee consideration of the Bill that became the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. The Government did not accept a single amendment in the whole of that Bill's Committee stage. When he presented the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, the Home Secretary said that, in his experience, he had known of no Bill that could not be improved in Committee. He should have been a member of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Discipline Bill, when Ministers debated with minds that were closed. That is a matter of enormous regret.
This Bill is a missed opportunity to put right the damage done by the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 and to consolidate the various legislation on discipline. The attempt to consolidate the relevant Acts began in 1991, and it is hard to believe, 10 years down the track, that this opportunity could not and should not have been taken. The Bill also wastes an opportunity to roll back the invidious effect on our armed forces of the European convention on human rights.
I shall finish by referring to General Guthrie. My run-ins with him are a matter of record, but his RUSI lecture contained the warning that the plethora of employment legislation and litigation could lead to a culture of risk aversion. He could not be as frank as I can be, and I maintain that that legislation and litigation have indeed led to a culture of risk aversion.
I have friends in the forces who now command regiments and ships. The health and safety culture is endemic in the services, and the Army is now a completely different institution, in terms of how it is administered, from the one that I left. My friends do not consider the change to have been an improvement, as it has made the services risk averse.
That aversion to risk is now evident in the administration of summary justice. Subordinate commanders and commanding officers are becoming risk averse with regard to how they administer the summary justice system. It is sad that that should be happening to our armed forces. Ministers must listen to what the Chief of the Defence Staff is really saying, and to do that they must read between the lines. He is saying that the quality of our armed forces is falling because of the burden of legislation under which we are making them operate. It is about time that the House took note of that and began to put in place procedures to enable our armed forces to roll back the risk-averse culture. We must give them the freedom that they need to be the armed forces that our country has always deserved.

Mr. David Heath: I shall be brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak. At the end of her contribution, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) deprecated the comments of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. Many hon. Members of all parties agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman said, and consider that in this case the Select Committee process has gone sadly awry. No doubt we will debate that later this evening.
The debate on the Bill is traditionally wide ranging, and today's debate is no exception. I shall say relatively little about armed forces discipline, save that I believe that the armed forces, rather than reflecting society as a whole, should be able to protect it. For that reason, I believe passionately that everyone who can serve this country in the armed forces should be able to do so in the role that best fits their abilities. That is why so much of what is in the Bill is absolutely right.
I do not have a great deal of experience of the armed forces, although I served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme last year with the Navy—

Mr. Hancock: With distinction.

Mr. Heath: Twenty long days before the mast, and suddenly I am an expert on the Navy— well, I am not.
I recognise the enormously valuable role played by women in the Navy on the fighting ships that I had the privilege to visit. I saw them doing a very effective job on a front-line fighting vehicle—a warship—in every role, from stoker to executive officer to weapons officer. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to a gentleman in the Army who said that he would find it quite impossible to maintain discipline in a mixed front-line unit. I have to say to that Army officer, "Go and talk to the Navy commander or the navy captain who is doing the job on a day-to-day basis and making an extremely good job of it."
I have rather more experience in the field of policing. Clause 31 deals with the Ministry of Defence police, and I must express some serious concerns about the proposals. I do not do so because I lack confidence in the Ministry of Defence police, nor because I disrespect their professionalism, their training or any other aspect of the valuable role that they play. I intervened on the Minister earlier to ask him where the proposal came from, and I suspected that he would answer as he did. He said that the proposal had come from the Ministry of Defence and from the MOD police to provide a natural extension of the role of MOD constables. The proposal did not come from the territorial police forces of this country. That is odd. If the purpose is to provide better policing away from defence establishments, one would expect a corroboration of that view from the territorial forces Instead, most of what we have heard from the chief constables, the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association raises serious doubts.
There are good reasons for that, but first let us ask why the Ministry of Defence police might want to extend their role. The reason might be that it is a matter of convenience, as was suggested earlier, or that the MDP are conscious of a change in their role since their establishment. The Military Provost Guard Service is now

taking over many of the security functions on bases. There is also a difference in the accommodation that the Ministry of Defence estate now provides. There is much more mixed accommodation, by which I mean a mixture of Ministry of Defence and private housing in which civilian families live next door to service personnel. There is a blurring of the edges.
The Bill also provides for the military police to have more of a constabulary role, as it was described earlier. I have to express a degree of prejudice, because I have never been convinced that there is enormous value in having an array of separate non-territorial police forces in this country. The hon. Member for Salisbury said that he was pleased to have eight different police forces active in his constituency. I think it is nonsense to have eight police forces operating in the Salisbury constituency, all with different roles and not communicating with one another.
An expression of faith was made in the Royal Parks constabulary, and it was stated that it does a wonderful job because its officers are capable of talking to foreigners and protecting the royal palaces. The extremely good police officers in the Palace of Westminster also manage to talk to foreigners; they do a good job of protecting a royal palace without having to be part of a separate police force. Operational problems arise from having separate police forces which are responsible for their own little precincts.
The basic ethos of policing in this country is the consent of the community. It is policing in the community, for the community, by the community. The more non-territorial police forces that are not accountable to the local community take on a policing role, the more we erode the intimate connection between the community and its police force. On the face of it, this may seem a sensible move, but I think that it betrays flaccid thinking. It does not address the issues of policing.
What is the role of the constable anyway? Some years ago, a Police Foundation report identified what it saw as the inalienable roles of the sworn constable, as it described the office of constable, which could not be given to someone who was not a constable. There were three categories. One was to arrest, detain and search a citizen or property under statutory powers. I am not sure whether there is a need for MOD police to have that role outside their specific responsibilities on defence land. Why should they need to do any of those things, given that they would have to do so under a statutory power provided via the chief constable of the territorial force?
Secondly, the Police Foundation identified the role of bearing arms and exercising force for the purpose of policing. I am not sure that I want MOD police bearing arms in a public place, ready to use them outwith the responsibilities of the local constabulary. The third right, which I believe that they should have, is that of full access to criminal records and intelligence for the purposes of operational planning. Of course, they need that only if they partake in operations. There is no clear reason, to me, why they need to partake in operations outside their specific role as MOD police policing the Ministry of Defence estate and military installations.
What will the provision confer on a Ministry of Defence policeman in extending his role in the office of constable outside the current provisions, which he could not perform as a citizen? The answer is nothing. If a Ministry of Defence policeman is in uniform, travelling


from one place to another, and sees a robbery or a violent attack on another citizen, he has the same rights as all of us—me, the Minister, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker—to effect an arrest. Indeed, I believe that he would be failing in his duty were he not to attempt to do that.
Extending the role would lead to the risk of confusion in the first instance. There are practical issues about communications between the local constabulary and the MOD police potentially acting in a freelance way. There is the opportunity for the MOD police accidentally to disrupt the local constabulary's covert operations simply because they are not part of the planning loop and are not involved in the arrangements, and for no real purpose. Serious questions need to be asked about the proposal. The area of responsibility of the Ministry of Defence police should not be extended merely at their whim. Such an extension must be effected in co-ordination with local constabularies.
We should undertake a full-scale review of all the non-territorial police forces to establish their proper functions and roles. There may be a strong case for Ministry of Defence police to have the opportunity to be seconded to local police forces to provide additional support and gain experience of a wider and different sort of policing. That could be enormously beneficial. However, that they should apply their powers to citizens who are not a part of the military machine in the absence of accountability locally or a clear recognition of the role that they are playing could be dangerous, and will need closer examination.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I agree that the debate has been wide ranging, and rightly so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) pointed out, this is the measure by which the Crown has the authority of Parliament to maintain a standing Army, as provided for by the Bill of Rights of 1688. A copy of that Bill is in the other place and can be shown to visitors. It is a living document and it is the authority by which we maintain a standing Army. I salute the Government for having included a reference to that in the explanatory notes. The historical perspective is most welcome.

Mr. Blunt: If unusual.

Mr. Howarth: Unusual indeed.
As the director of personal services, Army, told the Defence Committee during its inquiry last year:
the ability of a Commanding Officer to maintain good order and military discipline is fundamental to his ability to command his troops. Maintaining the system of summary discipline is our vital ground.
That is what the Bill is about. We should have Brigadier Ritchie's remarks before us at all times.
The Select Committee was right to draw attention to the preamble of previous Bills, stating
As the preamble to the old annual Acts used to put it—
… it being requisite … that an exact discipline be observed and that persons belonging to the said forces who mutiny, or stir up sedition, or desert Her Majesty's service, or are guilty of crimes and

offences to the prejudice of good order and military or air force discipline, be brought to a more exemplary and speedy punishment than the usual forms of the law will allow.
That should be at the heart of our concerns. The necessity of maintaining order in our services and for
a more exemplary and speedy punishment than the usual forms of the law will allow
should be considered if we are to be able to meet the requirements set out by the brigadier.
How do we respond to the Bill before us? Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I welcome parts of it, in particular the decision to permit warrant officers to be included in courts martial. That is a sensible move. In many respects such officers are better schooled in human experience and life than some of the officers. They are therefore likely to bring a dimension to courts martial that will be welcomed.
Perhaps I could be allowed the liberty of paying tribute to the garrison sergeant major in Aldershot, Joe Fairbairn, who is a fantastic chap and has done a marvellous job not only for the garrison there but for the civilian community. He has been a great ambassador for the Army and for the warrant officer class and the fantastic job that they do.
I share some of the reservations of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the Government's proposals for the Ministry of Defence police. I am sure that the public would regard it as sensible that, in moving from one site to another, if the MOD police see a criminal act taking place, they should be able to use their training and the authority conferred on them by their position to do more than the ordinary citizen could do. That seems sensible, as I say, but the Committee must carefully consider the precise proposals.
The Minister of State says that the Government are not slavishly following the civilian systems, but the explanatory notes—and, indeed, his speech—show the extent to which the Government want to apply civilian standards and arrangements to military discipline, and there is constant reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, there are great dangers in doing so, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made that point extremely well. If the Government are not slavishly following the procedures that apply to the civilian world, they are nevertheless in danger of going too far down that road. They will do the services no benefit, even if that is their intention.
The second point that I wish to make is about the references to the Human Rights Act 1998—as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, the Bill refers to that Act—and the extent to which the Government think it necessary to protect us from challenge in the European Court of Human Rights, but we shall always be subject to such challenge. Ministers themselves have made that point. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said that there is a constantly moving scene. The drive towards human rights in the European area—it is not a European Community issue—is such that that court seeks constantly to extend its definition of human rights.
There will inevitably be more and more cases in which we must apply the decisions of a foreign court to our armed forces. As I have told the House before, it is entirely wrong that the composition and structure of Her Majesty's forces should be determined by people other than us. So I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that we should extricate our armed forces from the Human Rights Act 1998 as


soon as possible. While recognising the difficulty, the Select Committee on Defence recommended that Ministers should give that serious consideration.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very sad that a convention that originated in the aftermath of the bestial war crimes of the second world war to try to prevent a repetition of those atrocities should now be so twisted and perverted as to be imposed on democratic countries and, indeed, on the armed forces of those countries, without which the second world war would never have been won?

Mr. Howarth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that he was in the Chamber when I intervened on the hon. Member for Hereford to tell him that the origins of the convention are as my hon. Friend has so explicitly made clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has come under attack, not least from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for supporting the remarks about women in the armed forces made by the Chief of the Defence Staff. It is important to understand the Opposition's criticism. Of course we believe that women have a role to play in our armed forces. My mother will be 85 in a few days. She served her country in the armed forces for six years, from 1939 to 1945. I have constituents who served, with enormous distinction, in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. One of my constituents landed on the beaches on D-day plus one or two, within hours of the first landings. Of course women have a role to play, but most Conservative Members do not believe that women should serve in the front line of the infantry.

Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will not, because I want to allow the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the opportunity to speak. I cannot do that by giving way.
We do not believe that, as has been suggested, people have a right to join the armed forces The duty of the armed forces is to protect this country; it is not to reflect society. Douglas Bader was disabled and was able to continue to contribute his skills to the Royal Air Force because he was already a skilled pilot. He was also very determined and would not take no for an answer. That was entirely right and proper.
It is significant that, when a member of the Disability Rights Commission was asked to comment on the remarks made by the Chief of the Defence Staff, he said:
All we are against is the absolute bar on disabled people serving in the Armed Forces. We are fully mindful of the need for combat effectiveness.
That is what concerns Conservative Members. We do not have it in for disabled people—far from it. Indeed, the previous Government did more for disabled people than had been done for many years before. Labour Members have tried to misrepresent our views.
Our armed forces must train for war fighting and not for peacekeeping. I read with concern the idea that recruits could hold up a red or yellow card if they thought that they were being shouted at by their instructors. When people go into battle, there is noise around them. The first

thing that hits anyone who sees "Saving Private Ryan" is the noise, and I am told that the film more accurately reflects battlefield conditions than many other war films that are on offer. If we do not train men for that atmosphere, they will not be able to perform if they encounter it.
It has been suggested that people who have never lived away from home before are incapable of accepting certain forms of instruction. People who joined the armed forces in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s had not left home previously, but they heard no less shouting from the sergeant major. They formed the armed forces of which everyone in the House has said that they are proud. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
I know that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) wish to speak, but I wish to make a final plea to the Minister that is unrelated to the issue of discipline. However, it is an important military matter. I refer to the inquiry being conducted by Lord Saville into the activities that took place in Londonderry in 1972. It is a completely ludicrous inquiry. It has run for two years and, according to the latest figures that we have from Ministers, it has so far cost £30 million. It is deeply distressing for members of the armed forces that those who did their best, as they saw it, in difficult conflict conditions in which they had to take instant decisions are having to account 30 years later for what happened on the day. However, the one man who does not have to account for his actions is Martin McGuinness, who I believe is—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the terms of the debate.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I entirely accept your ruling. However, as was pointed out earlier, this wide-ranging debate offers a five-yearly opportunity to consider military matters. We are dealing with morale and the impact of the Government's proposals on morale. I wish to place on record the fact that in my constituency of Aldershot there is grave concern about the Saville inquiry. I do not believe that any winners will come out of it; it can lead only to further tears.
On that rather unhappy note, I conclude my remarks. I hope that the Minister will take on board our reservations about the Bill—that it will advance the cause of political correctness to the detriment of the qualities and conditions of our armed services, about which so many hon. Members have today been complimentary.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am sure that when Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, made his controversial and pointed swan-song speech a few weeks ago, he did not think that it would be used as a bridge-building exercise between him and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but it served that purpose this evening when the hon. Gentleman agreed with so much of what Sir Charles said. That speech will be interpreted in many ways, not least when attempting to discover when tosh is not tosh—it is only tosh when those on the Conservative Front Bench interfere and table a motion, the substance of which uses his words. Today's


debate will receive widespread comment within the Ministry of Defence, which will reconsider what Sir Charles Guthrie said and how it could be so viciously misinterpreted.
The debate has been good humoured, as all defence debates are in this place. It has brought many of the usual suspects to the Chamber. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is not here because this is one of the few times that I will not speak for half an hour, and therefore he would not get fed up.
Many Conservative Members, including a former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), contributed to the debate, but they did not give an example of when good order and discipline might be affected by the Bill's substance. They made allegations, but, when challenged, did not give a clear idea of what the problems might be.
If the hon. Member for Reigate moves an amendment to get his name on the Select Committee, I shall support it. He deserves to serve on it, and the Committee deserves to have him. I served with him on the Defence Committee and enjoyed our shared moments. Other hon. Members should get the benefit of his company.
We have been told that there will be endless appeals. What is wrong with someone having the right of appeal against disciplinary action if they believe that there has been an injustice? There is nothing wrong with giving people the right to go to another court and take the issue further up the chain. It is offensive for hon. Members to say that the men and women in our armed forces, who daily put their lives on the line to protect other people's human rights, should not have the same rights. For the Conservatives to say that one of the first things that they would do when they are back in government—they did not say when that would be—

Mr. Quentin Davies: In a few months.

Mr. Hancock: I doubt that that is true, but optimism springs eternal from the Conservative Front Bench.
However, I do not doubt the integrity of members of the armed forces who presented to the Defence Committee the case for what we are discussing tonight. They were not given a smooth run, but, as always, were vigorously interrogated by all members. Not once did they retract or alter the substantial improvements to the armed forces discipline procedures that they recommended to the Committee. They believed that change was long overdue, and many hon. Members have reflected on the clear need for that. Senior officers in all three services advised us that the changes would not present the enormous obstacles that have been mentioned tonight. They represent a significant and useful step forward that will give our armed forces and those men and women who are covered by the legislation a fair opportunity to have the same rights that any of us would expect to have. There is nothing wrong with a Government introducing such a proposition to the House.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I probably will not have the chance to make a speech. Does he agree that biggest

anomaly of all is having different disciplinary rules for each of the three services? Does not failing to incorporate those procedures into one set of rules represent a huge lacuna?

Mr. Hancock: I agree, although the Bill is a stepping stone to achieving the once-and-for-all change that will unify those procedures. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that some of his hon. Friends are very much against the change that he proposes. Some say that it is against the regimental ethos and that great damage will be done if individual regiments are unable to pursue their own codes of disciplinary conduct, which they may have had for a century or more. I do not happen to share that view; I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It will be an enlightened Administration who achieve the unification of the different disciplinary Acts that cover the men and women in our armed forces.
We have an opportunity here. I am not pessimistic, and I believe that the select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), will amend the Bill should the need arise. Those who are selected by the House to be members of it will keep an open mind and be willing to make improvements where necessary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, chuckles. I am optimistic that the Defence Committee will one day not always let him get his own way, so I live in hope of lots of things happening.
I have much enjoyed the debate and believe that the Government need help and support to ensure that we discipline our service men and women in a proper and fair manner. We must give them no more rights, but no fewer, than any of us would expect and desire should we be in their position. We must do the Bill justice by giving it firm support on Second Reading and a helpful passage through the Select Committee.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for giving me three minutes in which to make three important points.
This quinquennial Bill allows the Government of the day to make provision for the standing armed forces and covers a wide range of subjects. First, I want to discuss a huge anomaly. During consideration of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, in which I was involved, the Government spent a great deal of time ensuring that our law complied with the European convention on human rights. However, there are different disciplinary regimes for each of our armed forces. Surely it would make a great deal more sense to have a combined set of disciplinary procedures.
Secondly, we uncovered and discussed at great length in Committee the default in respect of the summary appeals procedure.The 2000 Act is inconsistent with the legislation that pertains in the civil courts, where a sentence can be increased or decreased on appeal. Allowing a sentence only to be diminished will give free licence to, and indeed encourage, every service man who feels in any way disadvantaged to appeal. The Bill represents an ideal opportunity to remedy that defect, and I hope that the Committee will table amendments to do something about it.
Thirdly, clauses 33 and 37 contain great powers to pass secondary legislation. The use of secondary legislation is an increasing and unwelcome trend under this Government. That was also the case, it must be said, under the previous Government, but the trend has been accelerated by the present Government.
If one examines clauses 33 and 37, one sees that, in effect, almost half the Bill can be amended by secondary legislation. It is a trend on which Ministers and civil servants are increasingly embarking, and it is an undesirable one. On the whole, when legislation is imposed on citizens of this country, it should be imposed properly, through primary legislation passed through both Houses of Parliament and subject to proper scrutiny by elected representatives.
Our armed forces are the most respected in the world. Deterrence is the best form of defence. Let us hope that, with their political correctness and by giving excessive rights to armed forces personnel, the Government do not diminish that effectiveness. I want our armed forces to be the most feared in the world, because hopefully that will deter any future conflicts.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I apologise for the state of my voice which is unlikely to get better as I proceed.
I shall start by putting some right hon. and hon. Members out of their suspense. We have not said that we will urge our colleagues to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We hope that we will be able to pass the reasoned amendment. If we do that, the Government will have to come back with a better Bill, which will be a good thing.
In the unfortunate and entirely hypothetical eventuality that we do not succeed in persuading the majority of the House to support the amendment, we will have to take stock of the decision of the House and of the fact, which has been mentioned several times this evening, that we need a Quinquennial Bill, or the individual armed forces discipline Acts will expire. We will take a responsible decision accordingly.
A large number of right hon. and hon. Members have taken part in the debate, which is good particularly as so few hon. Members from all parts of the House will take part in the Committee. I regret the fact that the Committee is so restricted in number and that the Government have decided to pack it with parliamentary private secretaries, in addition to Ministers and Back Benchers. We would have preferred a larger Committee.
The right hon.—it is a pleasure to call him that—Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) began by paying tribute to the military police, with which we all agree, and made a number of important points. He made a devastating remark which I wrote down, so I hope that I have got it exact. The right hon. Gentleman said that the composition of the Committee is a classic case of the Executive dominating the legislature. I could not agree more. That is a disturbing tendency on the part of the Government, to which I have referred in many contexts. Many of my hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches have been doing that for the past three and a half years. I trust that the point will not be lost on the electorate in a few months' time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) spoke not only with the distinction of a former Secretary of State for Defence, but as one of those who were instrumental in launching the doctrine of expeditionary warfare at the end of the cold war, some 10 years ago. He emphasised the deeply disturbing fact that, far from reducing the deficit in the numbers in our armed forces, the Government are moving backwards. They recently pushed back from 2005 to 2008 the time when, under a Labour Government, we would get our forces back up to strength. I trust that we will not have a Labour Government for much longer, and that those numbers will be up to strength very much sooner.
I shall surprise the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and embarrass her by saying that she did not say a word with which I could disagree, even if I tried. She said that combat effectiveness was crucial as a criterion for judging the contents of the Bill. I thoroughly agree with that; it is exactly the position that the Opposition will take. She said that there was in the House a dangerous lack of knowledge about military matters on the part of people who had first-hand experience of them. I agree with that. We may not be able to do anything about it, but we should be aware of it. She made the point that, in those circumstances, it is important that the Committee meet as many serving men and women and their families as possible.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made an entirely tasteless and unjustified attack on the heir to the throne, in the light of which I have little inclination to engage with his speech.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is a frequent and well-informed participant in our debates. I do not think that he will be embarrassed when I say that we have something in common in that our fathers both served in the RAF, and he speaks with genuine feeling about military matters. In particular, he spoke about support for families and the need to look more favourably at what we can do for stepchildren, comments with which I have much sympathy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has long experience of these matters and I deeply regret that he will not be a member of the Standing Committee. He set out some of his experiences of Government responses to recommendations of Select Committees on which he had sat, and what he said was pretty devastating. The Government clearly treat Select Committees, as they do the rest of the House, with complete and growing contempt. He set out several points that he would like to be taken up in Committee. One concerned the pension anomalies, another the fitness of military personnel and another the military medical services, a theme that he has made very much his own in the past few years. I hope we will be able to take up those matters, provided that they are not timetabled out. Again, that is something that the Government are likely to try to impose on the House. We shall see later this evening what will happen about that.
I am sorry that the only participant in the debate whose comments I missed was the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and I apologise to her for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) spoke about the invidious European convention on human rights and its impact in Britain, and he spoke about the culture of risk aversion, which, he said, is not something which might potentially be created by an excess of bureaucratic


legislation and interference, as the Chief of the Defence Staff suggested, but is already here. I fear that he is all too right about that.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) spoke against the fragmentation of the military police force. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who, again, is a knowledgeable participant in these debates and whom I regret, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, will not be members of the Committee where they would have made memorable contributions, spoke in favour of warrant officers taking part in courts martial. I thoroughly agree with his argument on that which I found convincing. He was concerned about the extension of the powers of the military police and he was also rightly concerned about the apparently inexorable extension of the jurisdiction and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) strongly supported the Bill, as the Liberal Democrats appear to be doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), in a marvel of succinctness, managed to put over in three minutes, three important points—the need for a tri-service Bill, the unfortunate asymmetric aspect of the appeal procedure in the new Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, and the excess of secondary legislation under the Government.
Two major themes have clearly emerged from the debate. One is the need for a tri-service Act, and the Government's utter failure to bring one forward. It is no use after nearly four years simply saying that they are sorry that they could not quite get around to it; that they could not manage it. This is simply another example of administrative incompetence. Let me remove all ambiguity on the subject by saying formally to the House that the next Conservative Government will bring forward a tri-service Bill and we will get the matter straight.
The second big theme which has emerged is that of political correctness.

Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I am afraid that time does not allow. The second theme, of course, is the Labour party's new ideology. A generation or so ago, it was in hock to Marxism, which took a simple-minded view of the world, and said that the essential distinction in the human race was between capitalists and the exploited toilers. Now, the Labour party has gone over to an equally simple-minded distinction: on one side are women, gays, the disabled and anyone from a so-called ethnic community who, apparently, are the disadvantaged and the exploited of the earth and, on the other side, is the rest of humanity. Of course, that is complete junk and nonsense and it is frightening that adults think in those terms—let alone here in the House of Commons.
It would be utterly disastrous if, for one moment, such thinking were allowed to influence a matter as important as defence policy. It is grotesque to mix up the separate issues of women in the armed services, homosexuality in the armed services, disabled people and so on, which have nothing in common. They must be looked at as separate personnel and management challenges for our armed services. To remove any ambiguity, I shall briefly explain

where the Opposition stand, because it is not our business to run away from any of those issues. With homosexuality, it may well be that the problem is on the way to being resolved, and the Chief of the Defence Staff has already been quoted this evening as saying that. If so, and if senior officers are happy and relaxed about that, so much the better. Frankly, if people are discreet and are not causing problems for military discipline, it would be utterly obnoxious to try to pry officiously into their private sexual and emotional make-up and lives. If senior officers are relaxed about that, Parliament should take its cue from that judgment.
On the disabled, it is axiomatic that anyone who wears a military uniform or a cap badge should have been properly trained to undertake military tasks. Even those who are recruited to the armed forces without the career objective of war fighting are subject to a rigorous military training programme. They know how to handle weapons and know what to do in a crisis. The other day, I visited the Royal Marines in Portsmouth, and even the Royal Marine bandsmen, who are recruited largely on their musical ability, have to pass a rigorous military test. Obviously, someone who is disabled cannot do that. It is different if people have joined the Army or another service and been wounded, perhaps in the course of action, and then find themselves disabled. They are very much part of the team and the culture, having themselves had military training in the past, and they know how to respond in a crisis. Therefore, that is quite different.
It must be for those whose lives are at risk and those who have responsibility for commanding them in a crisis and, potentially, in battle, to decide the policy on recruitment. We back, that. Let me make it clear that the next Conservative Government will not try to impose an artificial Procrustean modish agenda on our armed services. We will listen to professional advice and will be guided by it. We will not second-guess military advice on the recruitment, training and promotion of personnel.
Exactly the same thing applies to women. Let me say right away that the most appalling things have been said on that subject this evening. The Conservative party is not against women in the armed services. We are not just for women in the armed services: we are enthusiastically for women playing a full part in the armed services. We are delighted that so many young women have joined in recent years, and we pay tribute to those women who are prepared to risk their lives in the service of their country, and do so on a par and without making any distinction from those men who serve alongside them, to whom we likewise pay tribute No distinctions whatever should be made in that.
There is also the question of the role that women can and should play in the services. As we all know, they are on the front line in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy and are doing very well there. Until now, the Army has taken the view that women should not be deployed on the front line. Using the same criterion that I used earlier, we will respect and stand by that judgment.
Finally, a terrible new threat from political correctness is on the horizon. As if the European convention on human rights were not enough, the Government now propose to accede to the International Criminal Court and ratify our participation in it. Once again, our approach is unlike that of the French, who have again had the sense to ask for a derogation, as they did with regard to the European convention on human rights. We did not seek


such a derogation on the ECHR, perhaps because we could not predict back in the 1950s that the jurisprudence that the convention involved would be so damaging to our conduct of military affairs. The French have asked for the same derogation on the ICC and have got it, but the British new Labour Government have not even thought—perhaps they did not have the guts—to request such a derogation. They have no excuse whatever. A combination of pusillanimity, incompetence and political correctness anaesthetising the minds of Labour Members—that is the characteristic of the new Labour Administration.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): If ever we need a reminder of the dangers of noise pollution, we have only to listen to a speech made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Spalding—

Mr. Quentin Davies: Grantham and Stamford.

Dr. Moonie: My apologies—you have lost Spalding.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Get it right if you are being insulting.

Dr. Moonie: I was hardly being insulting.
The debate has offered some valuable pointers on the matters that the Select Committee may want to examine further during the next few weeks. The Ministry of Defence is looking forward to helping the Committee in its work and to providing such further information about the Bill as it may require.
The Bill has a number of purposes other than the key purpose of maintaining the statutory basis for discipline in the armed forces. Like previous Armed Forces Bills, it may appear to be a miscellany of discrete proposals. It is possible to see the Bill in that light. However, the common thread that runs through the Bill—and, I believe, its predecessors—is a recognition of the need to bring service legislation up to date.
The Bill does that in a number of ways. It provides a proper framework for key activities of the service police. It gives the service courts and the machinery surrounding them powers reflecting those available within the civilian criminal justice system. It proposes a mechanism for allowing future development in the criminal justice sphere to be reflected more readily than is always possible at present. I shall speak about that in more detail later, if I have time.
In what I hope will be a particularly welcome change, the Bill enables warrant officers, who are regarded by many as the backbone of the services, to sit as members of courts martial. The new powers proposed in the Bill in relation to alcohol and drugs testing will help to provide a safer working environment for all service personnel, for civilians who work with them and for others with whom they come into contact. The Bill also clarifies the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police. It gives them the ability to provide an appropriate response, either individually or collectively, to the range of situations where they may be called on to assist in the policing of our communities.
The proposals have been developed pragmatically, for practical purposes. The test is whether they will improve the administration of discipline in the service or enable the Ministry of Defence police to make a more effective contribution to policing. We believe that they will do so and we will have ample opportunity to consider such matters in detail during the Select Committee's deliberations.
Many Opposition Members quoted from the speech made by the Chief of the Defence Staff, although they did so somewhat selectively. His remarks about a subaltern being sued by his platoon for making a mistake in the heat of battle were entirely hypothetical, and part of much wider comments on a society which he said was becoming more litigious—which is of course true.
Without wanting to prompt accusations of Ministers blowing their own trumpets, let me point out that General Guthrie made several warm comments about the support that he received from Defence Ministers. Indeed, he commented that our Defence Ministers understand our position and have been robust in the defence of our case during the recent European debate on ending employment discrimination on grounds of age and disability. Of course, we secured the required exemption.
I should spend a couple of minutes on the supposedly reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition and on rebutting some of their points. First, I put my hands up and admit that I should have liked to introduce a consolidation or tri-service Bill this year, but that has not proved possible. We explained at great length during deliberation on the Bill that became the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 why that was the case, but we have said that the introduction of such legislation will be possible at the nearest available occasion—the next quinquennial review.

Mr. John Bercow: It must be possible.

Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not possible this year, much as we might have liked to do it. It will be done on the next occasion that presents itself, and it will of course be done by a Labour Government: of that I am certain.
The Bill was never envisaged as a vehicle for tri-service measures. The Government have launched an initiative to create a framework for service discipline that will better meet the needs of armed forces that increasingly operate together. We acknowledged in the strategic defence review that the task would be massive and would take time. It is not simply a question of putting the three current Acts under one cover, and we owe it to our services to get it right.
Having decided to go for a tri-service Act, we had to review the consolidation project. We concluded that the unnecessarily complicated work involved in rewriting a significant amount of legislation was not worth the candle, but it will be done—although it will not be done this time, which I think we all regret.
According to the amendment, we have failed to
address the challenge to military combat effectiveness from the gathering tide of legislation following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.
There is, in fact, no challenge to combat effectiveness, because the Government are determined that the effectiveness of our armed forces will remain paramount.


That is evident from recent discussions on article 13 in the European Union, and from the treaty of Amsterdam, where we secured an exemption from the provisions in so far as they might impact on the armed forces.
The Opposition would like the United Kingdom to enter a reservation on the ECHR in relation to the armed forces, thereby denying the men and women of those forces the basic human rights applying to every citizen of this country. That is despicable.
I will not argue with the Opposition about the principle. They have their views and I have mine. Many of them rehearsed their limited arguments ad nauseam last year, and no doubt we shall hear exactly the same rubbish this year. What they said last year was completely off the wall, and I am afraid that it is even further off the wall now. We will not accept the contention that our armed forces should have fewer human rights than the rest of us.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Dr. Moonie: I have no time to give way, but I intend to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said during the debate. He will not be short of bites at the cherry.
We do not accept the proposition that the ECHR represents a threat to operational effectiveness—neither do the officers in the armed forces.
The amendment mentions the omission of
legal clarification of employment in the services of young people under the age of 18.
The position relating to employment of those under 18 in the armed forces is clear. The minimum age of entry—16—was determined by the school leaving age. Our policy regarding the non-deployment of under-17s in the light of the United Kingdom's declaration on signature of the optional protocol of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child has been implemented administratively. That is appropriate, as it provides flexibility in relation to the questions of combat effectiveness involved in who may and who may not be deployed in operations.
At the end of their amendment, the Opposition repeat their fear of a "creeping advance of litigation" that will in some way sap the morale of officers. I assure them that we have no intention of allowing that to happen, and that the officers with whom we deal every day have not the slightest fear that it will happen.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) had views on Ministry of Defence police powers. I am pleased to say that the Association of Chief Police Officers has broadly supported our proposals. We know that the same cannot be said of the Police Federation of England and Wales, but we think its reservations are based on an incomplete and possibly out-of-date assessment of the MDP's range of competencies and skills. We will, of course, explore these matters further during the Select Committee's consideration, but it may be useful to bear it in mind that, in 1999, Home Department officers called for MDP assistance on no fewer than 2,969 occasions in England and Wales, and on 63 occasions in Scotland. We feel that there should be a firm legal basis for such action.
We have no intention of allowing MOD police to be used to provide general support for duties in the community, but we see a need for a proper statutory basis for the very proper action that they must take on occasion, either collectively or individually.
We see no need for legal aid schemes to be put on a statutory footing. It has been a long-standing policy of Governments of both parties that they should mirror schemes in the civilian system. The MOD funds the services' legal aid schemes for those armed forces personnel brought before a court martial or a summary appeal court, or for preparing the grounds for an appeal to the courts martial appeal court. In certain circumstances, the scheme extends to the dependants of service personnel and to other MOD civilian employees who may be brought before a standing civilian court or court martial while serving overseas.
I will not spend much time discussing one half of the Opposition's views on the employment of women in the armed forces because they should not be dignified in that way—except to say that we are committed to maximising opportunities for women in the armed forces in so far as is consistent with the requirement to maintain combat effectiveness. We are waiting for a study which is to be released at some time in the next few months. We will act once we receive it. We do not propose to react to hypothetical argument.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked about the proposed powers of search within barracks—a matter raised by other Opposition Members. The provision for warrants relates to the search of sleeping accommodation in connection with the investigation of offences. In appropriate cases, searches of sleeping accommodation will require a warrant, but clause 16 clearly provides that the Bill does not limit the powers of a commanding officer to search such accommodation for reasons unconnected with the investigation of offences: for example, for health, safety or security purposes or for matters of routine discipline. There is no way that the standard inspection of quarters will be affected in any way by the Bill. The routine type of examination will be allowed. We are including a statutory basis for proper searches to be carried out. That is intended to enhance our abilities, not to restrict them.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked at whose behest MDP assistance would be provided. I think that I have answered that. It will be provided either at the request of an individual officer in an individual situation where an emergency has arisen, or where a chief constable requires general help—for example, with major flooding or other public order situations. I could talk about that at length, but we do not have time. We will cover it adequately in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked about police powers and their extent. They have been discussed with a wide range of parties. We feel that the limited extension of powers is appropriate in the light of the comments that we received.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) mentioned the effects of litigation. I am able to assure the House that my Department has no official directive requiring commanding officers to take out insurance in case they are sued. The MOD will stand behind its employees at all times—particularly service men and women—provided that they are acting in the course of their duty. The right hon. Gentleman may have been confused by the fact that public liability insurance must be purchased to cover activities that are not publicly funded, such as the provision of certain local sports clubs


or playgroups, but there is absolutely no question of soldiers being required to purchase liability insurance to cover their operational duties—none whatever.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) thinks that he has spotted a mistake in the Bill. I assure him that it is not a mistake. The Navy requested that the gap be maintained, so that the commencing rank for service in a court martial by officers remained as it always had.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) mentioned the number of summary court cases and appeals. It is just my luck that the hon. Gentleman's own old regiment had one of them. In the two months since the commencement of the legislation for which I have figures, 2,638 summary offences were dealt with across the three services. Those have led to 42 appeals or 2 per cent. That is hardly excessive.
This is a worthwhile Bill, albeit it limited in scope. A much wider one will be introduced in five years' time. I commend the Bill to the House
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 350.

Division No. 37]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Green, Damian


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beggs, Roy
Hammond, Philip


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Blunt, Crispin
Hayes, John


Body, Sir Richard
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brady, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Burns, Simon
Key, Robert


Cash, William
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chope, Christopher
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lansley, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Collins, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Loughton, Tim


Day, Stephen
Luff, Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan, Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fraser, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Gale, Roger
Moss, Malcolm


Gibb, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Norman, Archie


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)





Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, William


Prior, David
Tredinnick, David


Randall, John
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


Robathan, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Walter, Robert


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wells, Bowen


Ruffley, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. James Gray and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Keith Simpson.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allen, Graham
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael



Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Ann


Battle, John
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Begg, Miss Anne
Colman, Tony


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cranston, Ross


Blackman, Liz
Crausby, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cummings, John


Blizzard, Bob
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Borrow, David
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brand, Dr Peter



Breed, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Denham, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dismore, Andrew


Browne, Desmond
Dobbin, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Burnett, John
Dowd, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Drew, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cann, Jamie
Ennis, Jeff


Casale, Roger
Etherington, Bill






Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Field, Rt Hon Frank



Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Flint, Caroline
Kidney, David


Flynn, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Follett, Barbara
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Laxton, Bob


Foulkes, George
Leslie, Christopher


Gapes, Mike
Levitt, Tom


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livsey, Richard


Gidley, Sandra
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Llwyd, Elfyn


Godsiff, Roger
Lock, David


Goggins, Paul
Love, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grogan, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonnell, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McFall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hancock, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McNamara, Kevin


Harvey, Nick
McNulty, Tony


Healey, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hendrick, Mark
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hoey, Kate
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mitchell, Austin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moffatt, Laura


Hurst, Alan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hutton, John
Moore, Michael


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morley, Elliot


Jamieson, David
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jenkins, Brian



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mountford, Kali


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Joyce, Eric
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Hara, Eddie


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Neill, Martin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Öpik, Lembit


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keetch, Paul
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kemp, Fraser
Palmer, Dr Nick





Pearson, Ian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Perham, Ms Linda
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Plaskitt, James
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pollard, Kerry
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pond, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pound, Stephen
Stringer, Graham


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rammell, Bill
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Trickett, Jon


Rogers Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Tynan, Bill


Roy, Frank
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruane, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
wareing, Robert N


Salter Martin
Watts, David



White, Brian


Sanders, Adrian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wills, Michael


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wray, James


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Snape, Peter
Wyatt, Derek


Soley, Clive



Southworth, Ms Helen
Tellers for the Noes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Greg Pope and


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 8.

Division No. 38]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bailey, Adrian


Alexander, Douglas
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh



Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Begg, Miss Anne


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkins, Charlotte
Bermingham, Gerald


Austin, John
Berry, Roger






Betts, Clive
Ennis, Jeff


Blackman, Liz
Etherington, Bill


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fearn, Ronnie


Blizzard, Bob
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Fitzpatrick Jim


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Breed, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foulkes, George


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gardiner, Barry


Burden, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burgon, Colin
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Burnett, John
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gidley, Sandra


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gilroy, Mrs. Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Goggins, Paul



Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hancock, Mike



Hanson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heath David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hendrick, Mark


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David



Corbyn. Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Jean
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cranston. Ross
Howells, Dr Kim


Crausby, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cummings, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Illsley, Eric



Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobbin, Jim



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drew, David
Jones, Dr Lynne (Sally Oak)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Joyce, Eric


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Edwards, Huw
Keeble, Ms Sally


Efford, Clive
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)





Keetch, Paul
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kemp, Fraser
Palmer. Dr Nick


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pickthall, Colin


Khabra, Piara S
Pike, Peter L


Kidney, David
Plaskitt, James


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pollard, Kerry


King. Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pond, Chris


Kirkwood, Archy
Pound, Stephen


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Leslie, Christopher
Primarolo, Dawn


Levitt, Tom
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Purchase, Ken


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rammell, Bill


Linton, Martin
Rapson, Syd


Livsey, Richard
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lock, David
Rendel, David


Love, Andrew
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McAvoy, Thomas



McCabe, Steve
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum
Rowlands, Ted


McDonnell, John
Roy, Frank


McFall, John
Ruane, Chris


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Salter, Martin


McNamara, Kevin
Sanders, Adrian


McNulty, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mactaggart, Fiona
Savidge, Malcolm


McWalter, Tony
Sawford, Phil


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mallaber, Judy
Shaw, Jonathan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew. Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Snape, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moore, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mountford, Kali
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mudie, George
Stringer, Graham


Mullin, Chris
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)



Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Öpik, Lembit
Timms, Stephen


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tipping, Paddy






Todd, Mark
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wilson, Brian


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winnick, David


Tyler, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Tynan, Bill
Woodward, Shaun


Vis, Dr Rudi
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Ms Joan
Wray, James


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Watts, David
Wyatt, Derek


White, Brian



Whitehead, Dr Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Greg Pope and


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cash, William
Thompson, William


Forth, Rt Hon Eric



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Christopher Chope and


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Wilshire.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Mr. Keith Bradley and Margaret Beckett relating to Armed Forces Bill, Tax Simplification (Joint Committee), Tax Simplification and Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Touhig.]
The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 130.

Division No. 39]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Alexander, Douglas
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Burden, Richard



Burgon, Colin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burnett, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Atkins, Charlotte



Austin, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bailey, Adrian
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnes, Harry
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Casale, Roger


Battle, John
Caton, Martin


Bayley, Hugh
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Chaytor, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Berry, Roger
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Breed, Colin
Cohen, Harry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Colman, Tony


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Connarty, Michael





Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr Kim


Corston, Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Illsley, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jamieson, David


Dawson, Hilton
Jenkins, Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Drew, David
Joyce, Eric


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Efford, Clive
Keetch, Paul


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kemp, Fraser


Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Etherington, Bill



Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Fisher, Mark
Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
Kirkwood, Archy


Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Don (Bath)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foulkes, George
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gapes, Mike
Linton, Martin


Gardiner, Barry
Livsey, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gerrard, Neil
Lock, David


Gibson, Dr Ian
Love, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCabe, Steve


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Goggins, Paul
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McFall, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNamara, Kevin


Hancock, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harvey, Nick
McWalter, Tony


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hendrick, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hinchliffe, David
Meale, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)






Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Miller, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mitchell, Austin
Skinner, Dennis


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moore, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Southworth, Ms Helen


Mountford, Kali
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Oaten, Mark
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Hara, Eddie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Öpik, Lembit



Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Todd, Mark


Pond, Chris
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg Derek (Halton)


Prosser, Gwyn
Tyler, Paul


Purchase Ken
Tynan, Bill



Vis, Dr Rudi


Rammell, Bill
Walley, Ms Joan


Rapson, Syd
Ward, Ms Claire


Raynsford, Nick
Wareing, Robert N


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
White, Brian


Rendel, David
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruane, Chris
Wood, Mike


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Woodward, Shaun


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Worthington, Tony


Salter, Martin
Wray, James


Sanders, Adrian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Jonathan
Mr. Greg Pope and


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Brady, Graham


Beggs, Roy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Browning, Mrs Angela


Blunt, Crispin
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)





Burns, Simon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cran, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Curry, Rt Hon David
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Norman, Archie


Day, Stephen
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Randall, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gibb, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Soames, Nicholas


Grieve, Dominic
 Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spring, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Streeter Gary


Hayes, John



Heald, Oliver
Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Horam, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, William


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tredinnick, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Trend, Michael


Key, Robert
Tyrie, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Walter, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Waterson, Nigel


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wells, Bowen


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lansley, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Leigh, Edward
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Letwin, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Willetts, David


Lidington, David
Wilshire, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Luff, Peter
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Dr. Moonie: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

Select Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.
2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday 15th March.



I shall be brief. It will come as no surprise to those Members who attended today's Second Reading debate that the Bill is to be committed to a Select Committee. The motion proposes that the Committee should report by 15 March.
The House values the procedure whereby armed forces Bills are examined by a Select Committee. That can encourage the development of a consensual approach to the proposed legislation, which is appropriate when we consider the maintenance of the services' disciplinary procedures. A consensual approach is, of course, not at all the same as an uncritical approach. The Select Committee's report will inform the debate on subsequent stages of the Bill in the House and in another place.
We consider it appropriate for the House to ask the Select Committee to complete its important work by a certain date. The date of 15 March proposed in the motion will allow some two months for the Committee to conduct its inquiries and to examine the Bill.

Mr. Eric Forth: What assurances can the Minister give the House that, in the event of an early general election, which would mean dissolving the House before 15 March, this important measure would have made progress by then?

Dr. Moonie: There has been an occasion when an early general election precluded completion of a Bill until after it had been brought back. There is very little chance of that event happening. [Interruption.] That is not the Government view; it is my view.

Mr. John Gummer: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the opposite question? If, as the discussions go on, the Government consider that a number of alterations ought to be made and that more time is needed, will it be possible to defer the date proposed, if the Government think that that is necessary? I ask merely as a matter of practicality.

Dr. Moonie: Clearly, we would examine any eventuality, but were consideration of the Bill to be delayed, the Committee would sit for longer to ensure that the Bill passed by the requisite time.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the model of a Select Committee and in the absence of witnesses, is it intended that the Committee will sit in private or in public? Between now, if the motion is passed, and 15 March, for approximately how many hours is it intended that the "Select Committee" will sit?

Dr. Moonie: Those are matters for the Committee, once it has been properly constituted. It will come to its conclusions at the appropriate time.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very tolerant. It is unusual for Select Committees to sit without advisers, particularly with a cut-off date. The Bill is important, and the House of Commons is ill served by Select Committees that rush through their work without the proper support staff. Can my hon. Friend

assure me that the Committee, which has already been criticised for its membership, will perform the task that it is meant to perform?

Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will ensure that the Committee performs its task. If my hon. Friend stays for the start of the next item of business, she may well hear something that will please her. She knows what I am speaking about.
The date of 15 March proposed in the motion will allow some two months for the Committee to conduct its inquiries and to examine the Bill. In my view, that is adequate for a 41-clause Bill, the main purpose of which, I believe, the House is united on.
Needless to say, the Ministry of Defence will do what it can to assist the Committee in its work. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Key: The Government have a number of problems with the motion. We should remember that the guillotine that we are considering, for that is what it is—the euphemism "programme motion" will rarely pass my lips—is the fruit of the labour of the Modernisation Committee. It came to the House without the Opposition's support, for sound reasons. We mind very much about the imposition of the guillotine procedure on this Bill of all Bills, which is unique in terms of the way in which the House works. It is the only Bill that has always had pre-legislative scrutiny and it sets a fine precedent for other legislation.
We agree that we must have the Bill. That is the basis of our armed forces. However, the Opposition have never been happy with the guillotine motion. I have already informed the Minister for the Armed Forces that we shall have great difficulty in getting through all the work involved in the tight time available. We shall do our best to assist with proper scrutiny in the circumstances, but the time that has been proposed overall is short compared with that for previous Quinquennial Bills.
I served on the previous Bill, which had a much more relaxed time scale in which to take stock of the situation and make recommendations to the House. The Bill received its Second Reading in December 1995 and, as far as I recall, it received Royal Assent in July 1996. That was proper consideration. The Select Committee met in January and reported at the end of April. That also was a reasonable time. On that occasion, we were able to agree with the then Opposition on roughly how long proceedings might take. However, no one could predict that, because we could not predict what the Government of the day would wish to add to the Christmas tree that a Bill such as this always is. The Opposition could not predict exactly what would turn up as a result of the depositions made, the evidence taken and the correspondence with the Committee during the period in question. It is never possible to predict precisely what will happen.
We recognise the arithmetic of the situation, but it is still not appropriate to impose strict time limits. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that the terms of the Bill were set out before Second Reading and before the arguments had been deployed on both sides of the House. We regret that, too, but it was a fait accompli.
Several Government Members even talked about what they would do when they were in the Committee. Considering the strong representations from the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, about the composition of the Committee—much more will be said about that later—the Government have built for themselves a stack of problems on the issue. They should be under no misapprehension about the deep sense of unhappiness in the House, not just on the Opposition Benches, about this procedure. Perhaps a number of hon. Members thought that, under the new regime, we would all go home at 10 o'clock. On current reckoning, they could be six hours out, but we shall see.
However reasonable the Bill—much of it is reasonable—it should receive proper scrutiny. Another reason why the Government have problems is that no provision has been made in the inflexible guillotine motion that has been imposed for any new clauses or amendments to be properly considered at any stage.
One of the huge benefits of the pre-legislative process is that it makes the defence community feel empowered and enfranchised. This is the one occasion in the course of five years when they can all make representations, not just to the Ministry of Defence but to the people who pay for the Ministry of Defence—the House of Commons on behalf of the taxpayer—and they are losing that. It would be bad enough if they were losing that enfranchisement in a normal Standing Committee; it is worse when we have what is alleged to be a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, and they have lost all that too.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) rightly asked whether the Government could ask for more time. As I understand it, the Government could do that, but there is a delicious irony here. If the Government come back to the House and ask for more time, that is debatable. If they come back to shorten the length of time, it is not debatable, which is an extraordinary situation.
The first question must be whether the Government will add anything at all—one phrase, one letter, one comma—to the Bill. If they do, we hope that they will extend the time within which the Committee must report back to the House.
If we abide by the motion, there will be 28 sitting opportunities between next Tuesday and 8 March, which is the last reasonable date on which we could sit before reporting, with a printed report appearing on 15 March. That is more than 14 sitting days, and would involve a considerable break with precedent. When the previous Quinquennial Bill was considered, the Select Committee met on Tuesday mornings and occasionally Tuesday afternoons, but not Thursdays, which was when it went out and about to take evidence and to pay visits, as is envisaged under the motion before us.
However, we cannot have it both ways. Are the Government saying that we must sit in Committee and that people must travel to London? Are they saying that we must not go out into a service atmosphere if the timetable is to be achieved? Or are they suggesting that we should get out, as has been mentioned? The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said how valuable it was to go out to the defence community and listen to it, but that is incompatible with the Committee remaining here.

Mr. Forth: What assumptions is my hon. Friend making in mentioning the 28 sitting days? What period of

time does he expect the Government to allow the Committee to deliberate? There is a considerable difference between 28 days of mornings only and 28 days in which the Committee may have to finish by 5 pm or 8 pm. What about Thursdays? What assumptions is my hon. Friend making?

Mr. Key: First, Thursday is a normal sitting day, and the sitting may finish at 7 o'clock. Come to that, as my right hon. Friend will know, Friday is a normal sitting day. The only assumption I have made so far is that precedent suggests that we should sit on those days. However, if that precedent is not kept—which would be no surprise—it would be for the Committee to decide when it sits. On this occasion, the arithmetic is that the Committee equals the Government.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help me? Precedent is based on the principle established when the Government knew that they had to come to an agreement with the Opposition to carry through their business. It was necessary to have more sitting days and the Government had an interest in achieving that. I am sure that the Minister would not do this, but there is now a system in which the Government could say that there is only one sitting day, even though they never mentioned that in debate. They could say, "That's it. That is how we are going to do it." I do not think that any other institution would accept a timetable motion that did not state what the timetable was. This is truly a guillotine: we are underneath it, waiting for it to fall.

Mr. Key: Yes, indeed—while la tricoteuse is observing somewhere else, no doubt. We shall return to that later.

Mr. Bercow: With reference to the observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is my hon. Friend aware of, and does he share my disgust at, the fact, that, so far as the Government are concerned, the working day in a Committee considering a Bill is not comparable to a working day in the House? The Government have the audacity to propose that the Committee should conclude its deliberations at 5 pm on Thursdays. Are we part-timers or what?

Mr. Key: Compared with the days when a Committee had to deliberate for a 100 hours before any consideration could possibly be given to a guillotine motion, the answer is yes.

Dr. Moonie: That is how stupid the House was.

Mr. Key: Well, there was a good reason—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister was not here when that procedure took place. We should not accept his interpretation of this matter, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends were here when that procedure used to happen.
There is another reason why we have a problem with the guillotine. The Ministry's explanatory notes on part V of the Bill helpfully state:
This clause provides a general order-making power which would enable the Secretary of State to make for the armed forces provisions equivalent to those contained in any future civilian criminal justice legislation or any existing legislation that it amends.


Oppositions do not like giving such carte blanche to any Minister of the Crown.
It will be difficult to fit all the business into such a short time when we do not yet know for how many hours a day or days a week the Committee will sit, or how many visits outside London we shall have to make. During today's debate, several suggestions have been made of important aspects of defence life that we should examine. For example, defence medical services, with which HMS Haslar is associated, have been mentioned. We have been told that we should hold an inquiry into the pensions trough that exists for thousands of Ministry of Defence pensioners. We should hold another inquiry into depleted uranium; we should even consider passports for service family pets. There are doubtless many other aspects that we should examine.

Mr. John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the Government's measures have required several hundred amendments? Sometimes half—or more—of a Bill has to be rewritten. Will my hon. Friend insist on behalf of the Opposition parties that if that happens to the current Bill, the time for its consideration must be extended? Otherwise, it will be impossible to accommodate such detail.

Mr. Key: The Ministry of Defence is modest about such matters. It has a bite at the legislative cherry about once every five years, unlike some other Departments, which wage a constant battle with the House. I have never known the Ministry of Defence to produce hundreds of amendments to such a Bill, but there is always a first time. As I suggested earlier, if it introduced many amendments, we would insist that the Government returned to the House to procure an extension of time. The next couple of months are wholly unpredictable.
Five years ago, the previous Select Committee was due to visit the resident garrison for Cyprus. For local reasons that prevailed at that time, we were unable to go. Instead, we went to visit garrisons in Germany, where we took formal evidence on courts martial procedures and other matters that were relevant to the Bill. We believe that it would be appropriate for the Committee to visit garrisons, not exclusively abroad, but, for example, a garrison centre that hosts a court martial centre. That would entail quite a lengthy visit. I cannot think of anywhere better than Aldershot for such a visit; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would welcome the Committee there. However, we may not have time to do that. We need to take a lot of evidence.

Mr. Edward Leigh: With the benefit of his experience, will my hon. Friend explain what sort of Committee we are considering? A Select Committee is traditionally very different from a Standing Committee. The former comprises independent-minded members and no Whips. The proposed membership of the Select Committee that will consider the Bill bears more resemblance to a Standing Committee: it will comprise Ministers and Government trusties. What is it? Will it be genuinely independent, do what the Minister wants and examine the Bill critically?

Mr. Key: It will probably be a therapeutically cloned Committee. Of course, it may be a genetically modified

Committee. However, we do not know. We shall spend a lot of time later on motion 4, which is entitled "Armed Forces Bill". It would not, therefore, be in order for me to pursue my hon. Friend's point far. However, it is worth saying that, five years ago, the previous Committee consisted of one Minister, who attended three out of 15 sittings. He was there only when he needed to be. It included one parliamentary private secretary and no Whips. It was a proper Select Committee, which functioned as such. This time, we are considering a different sort of animal. However, that will be the subject of debate later.
We need to take a lot of evidence from the Adjutant-General, the head of the Army Legal Service, and groups of private sector lawyers who make up the Forces Legal Network. Several provisions will affect service life. We shall therefore need to take evidence from the Army Families Federation, Airwaves, which covers the Royal Air Force, and naval families. We shall also need to take evidence from the Commission for Racial Equality, Stonewall, the Chaplain-General, the Equal Opportunities Commission, Liberty, Combat Stress—I could go on, and I shall. All those groups have an important contribution to make. My fear is that they will have no opportunity to give evidence to the Committee.
In connection with parts II and IV, the Committee will want to take evidence from the Royal Military Police, the MDP, the Defence, Police Federation and the Police Federation of England and Wales. I think we shall need to visit the MDP headquarters at Wethersfield near Braintree, and those of the Royal Military Police; and a visit to the corrective institution in Colchester known as the glasshouse would no doubt be extremely valuable.
All this will put great strain on the timetable, but further matters must also be examined. In that regard, the Government are in difficulty and disarray, and there is as yet no sign of their putting matters right, apart from their reference to a new tri-service Act. I am thinking particularly about the whole question of increased "purple"—in other words, tri-service—activity, and tri-service activity with other nations. That is the direction in which we are moving. There is no doubt that we are engaging in more such activity, not just with NATO and the United Nations but with other European nations.
I suspect that any defence Minister who sends forces into action overseas crosses his fingers several times, takes a deep breath and hopes that there will be no problems with local law. We currently have something called a status of forces agreement, which—as its name implies—determines the status afforded to forces visiting this country. When our troops go to Germany, for example, we have to negotiate memorandums of understanding with the German Government in regard to what will happen if British troops infringe, say, traffic legislation in that or another country in which they are not used to driving. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 is relevant here.
The issue is extremely complex. It was flagged up as a problem area in a letter to me from the Under-Secretary of State, dated 2 April 2000, but we have been given no indication of the point at which it will arise. The letter states:
When our forces are overseas, and the provisions of the SOFAs do not apply,
the Government must negotiate
terms comparable to those in the SOFA, with concurrent


jurisdiction for ourselves and the receiving state, to ensure that our personnel are subject to UK jurisdiction while on duty and, as far as possible, are exempted from certain punishments for offences committed outside the course of their duties. The Government hope to "secure exclusive UK jurisdiction". It gets complicated, however. For example,
UK forces operating under NATO or the UN in the Balkans
—where they have been for some time—
are immune from the local jurisdiction under arrangements negotiated
by the UK, NATO and the UN.
This is a huge area of complex international law, and other parts of British military law are lost in the mists of time—a phrase used by the Minister in another letter. If we are to commit our forces overseas to increasingly difficult and dangerous activities, it is the House's responsibility to establish a firm legal basis for their actions. If we have no time to do so because of a programme motion of this kind, otherwise known as a guillotine—I said this twice earlier —we are doing a disservice to Her Majesty's forces. I do not consider that a responsible course.
I have outlined our concerns about the programme that has been set before us. I am deeply concerned about the imposition of any sort of guillotine, particularly in the case of a Committee of this nature. I do not think that the Government have justified it so far, and I shall be interested to hear the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Gummer: I thank the Minister for introducing the guillotine motion. Last night, a motion was produced with no introduction of any kind. I also thank the Minister for his courtesy in responding to questions. I hope that he will not think that we raise the issue in any personal spirit of contradiction—the issue is difficult. We have no timetable motion, which is why I call this a guillotine motion. A motion cannot be a timetable motion unless there is a timetable—unless we know to what the end date refers. We do not know that. We do not know what the sitting arrangements will be. We do not know how many hours will be available. We do not know what the procedure will be that will enable the type of investigation that a Select Committee should have.
It is not now that we should discuss the Select Committee's membership—that is for a later discussion—but a quick look at it suggests that it is an unusual Select Committee. I can, for example, see no rebellious Opposition Member on the Committee. I make no comment about the Labour Members on the Committee. I can see no one who is likely to ask the difficult and awkward questions that should be asked on a Select Committee. That gives me some concern because of the nature of what we are discussing in this debate. It is not a timetable motion as we have only an end date.
Historically, guillotine motions have been different because they have been properly negotiated by the two sides in the House. Both sides had something to give. The Government were able to say, "If you are prepared to allow this business to go through in a reasonable way, we will be prepared to accept one or two of the sensible suggestions that you have put forward." The Opposition were able to say, "On that ground, we are prepared to have an informal arrangement." That ensured that the Bill was properly debated, but concluded at a reasonable hour and on a reasonable date.
That is not what we have been asked to do tonight. Instead, we have been asked to agree an end date with no knowledge of how many sittings there will be and what arrangements will be made, and without any ability to take into account the debate earlier today. That is not part of the arrangement. The motion was tabled before anyone had heard that debate.
The Minister courteously replied to my question about what would happen if the MOD discovered that, as a result of the discussions of the Select Committee, it needed to make significant changes to what is a significant measure. He kindly said that, in those circumstances, he would have to make some other arrangements. He cannot do that under the arrangement in the motion; he can do it only by overturning that arrangement. There is no way in which the Government can agree with the Opposition that a few more days might be appropriate. He will have to come back to the House and the House will then have to have a debate of this sort to give him an extension.
You, Mr. Speaker, know from your experience that on those occasions Governments are in the hands of the Leader of the House and various authorities, all of whom will tell the Minister that he cannot have any more time for debate on the Floor of the House. There is not another 45 minutes available because there are all sorts of other things to be done. Therefore, even if he is—and I believe him to be—honourable in his belief that, if there were the need, he would come back to the House, as a Minister of 16 years standing I must tell him from bitter experience that he will not win.
The Leader of the House is a powerful lady in those circumstances. She will say to the Minister, "You may be right, but you will not get the time." She might put it more directly than that, if I know the right hon. Lady, but that is what she will say.

Mr. Leigh: It is worse than that. Can my right hon. Friend imagine any Select Committee—for example, the Select Committee on Defence, which is now considering Westland—having to finish its inquiries by 15 March? Can he imagine the Committee having a Whip and wanting to have more meetings and call more witnesses? It would have to sit late into the night. That would not happen. Exhaustion would set in. The number of witnesses and the inquiry would be curtailed because the Committee would have to finish by 15 March. Parliamentarians are busy and there are only so many hours in the working week; therefore, it would not be a proper Select Committee looking at the issues in real depth.

Mr. Gummer: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not right; it is worse than he has suggested. If this were a normal Select Committee, it could be trusted to insist upon having enough time, even with an end date, to do its job properly. The problem is that it is not a normal Select Committee, so it will not demand enough time. It will be the patsy of the Whip and the Government. For the British armed forces to be in the hands of a Committee which has an end date upon which it can depend in order not to do its job properly is extremely serious.
I understand what the Government are about and I know who has been pressing them. It happened to me on many occasions. Civil servants would say to me, "Secretary of State, why do we have to go on with these


Committees that sit for so long? We have to listen to all the arguments, all sorts of people come and speak for a long time and we have to go on and on with it. Would it not be more convenient to have some sort of guillotine motion early in the procedure so that we could do this in a modern and sensible way?" I used to say, "It would be more convenient and I would like to go to bed, but this is what is called democracy." It is about allowing everybody every opportunity, which you defend so well, Mr. Speaker, to put his or her point of view.
It is not just a matter of democracy in the House—it is what makes people outside believe in the House. It is not just a matter of us defending our rights—it is about us defending our ability to meet the requirements of our constituents and ensure that they feel that the democratic system represents them and that they do not have to go outside that system to get the responses that they want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) pointed to a series of issues, many of which have arisen unexpectedly. Nobody expected the issue of depleted uranium to arise. Two sites in my constituency are affected by that problem and I have been defending the Ministry of Defence and the Minister. I have told people not to worry, that it seemed to me that proper measures were being taken, and that we would have direct and specific answers for them. However, they will feel safe about that only if the Select Committee is able, where necessary, to discuss those issues in the context of the Bill. After all, it will be another five years before there is another opportunity and it is not unreasonable for people to expect there to be plenty of time available.
Imagine if, some time in the future, it was discovered that something ought to have been done. What would people say? They would say that issues were not raised because the Government did not provide enough time. That is the hook that could be used. I am afraid that I know Oppositions well enough to know that they would use that hook and blame the Government even if it were their own fault. Therefore, the Government have an interest in ensuring that, wherever possible, they have an agreement—not a forced agreement—between those on a Committee to fix the time to meet the needs and not to fix the time and then restrict the needs. That is the difference between what we are being asked to do and what ought to be done.
The Minister should accept that there are some serious constitutional issues in the Bill. Like the Homes Bill yesterday, this is not a Bill to which we are generally opposed and it does not divide us in a serious way. We want to make it work. There are issues on which we disagree, but it is fundamentally a Bill that we want the Government to have because it is the basis upon which the armed forces proceed. Yesterday, there were many elements in the Homes Bill that we wanted to have, but in that Bill and this there are serious and significant questions about the powers given to Ministers to act outside the real power of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury used the phrase "carte blanche" to describe the powers given to Ministers to act outside the supervision of the House. Many people are worried about that. I do not believe that it is proper that we should restrict the time available for debate.
Finally, this motion would be reasonable if the history of Bills of this sort featured Oppositions—Labour and Conservative—who had made it impossible for Governments to organise the armed forces. However, I know of no occasion since the war when a Government have been unable to secure their armed forces legislation because of filibustering and procrastination by the Opposition.
The Minister is known for his courtesy, so why can he not be courteous enough to allow the House to come to a common mind in a traditional way? That is achieved not by enforcing an end date, but by agreeing a proper procedure for a Select Committee, which ought to be able to behave in an adult and courteous manner. What have Members of Parliament of all parties done to deserve this? Why are we considered to be unworthy of proper, human and courteous treatment?
I suspect that those of us who are modernisers are not always wise or knowledgeable. They have decided that they want what in theory they think that they need, instead of recognising that this procedure undermines the democratic accountability of the House and that it will render our democracy less and less respected.
This Bill is not unique. It is another example of hon. Members conspiring together in this House to give up the powers for which our ancestors fought. This is the moment to say, "No more." Until the Government learn that part of their heritage is to ensure that those without a voice can speak, we must make a stand and be determined to prevent guillotines such as this.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am by nature a trusting creature, so when I hear Ministers in previous Governments declaring their affection for the protection of the rights of the House of Commons I believe every word. I therefore resolutely put from my mind those occasions when they supported measures that I considered were not necessarily in the interests of Back Benchers or of democracy as a whole.
However, this is the second of three programme motions this week. I declare that I do not have a strong involvement in this Bill, but the principle involved is such that the debate should not be allowed to pass without a Labour Member registering the fact that the rights of Back-Bench Members are not served by programme motions whose imposition is occasionally regarded as automatic.
Bad legislation is not new in this House, and it is not the prerogative of one party in government. I have been here long enough to know that the parliamentary draftsmen are often not masters of the English language, and that they are not always able to express in terms acceptable to the House of Commons those ideas that hon. Members expect to appear in our legislation. However, getting into the habit of assuming that legislation can be automatically programmed or put through the House of Commons on the basis that it is convenient for the Government—even a Government whom I support wholeheartedly and whom I want to see returned with a large majority—is not something that I can allow to pass.
All legislation needs to be properly examined. The pre-legislative Select Committee system is a sensible development and one which we should all support, but it needs to be properly organised and serious. It ought not to be subjected to packed Committees or arrangements


that do not allow Select Committees to have proper advice or useful and sensible sessions at which they can take evidence about legislation.
I object to programme motions; I make no secret of that. I have spoken about them before and shall do so again. But I object even more to the assumption that the Government have an automatic right to rush their legislation through to the statute book in the form in which it issued from the parliamentary draftsmen. That attitude will lead not only to extremely bad Bills, but to Bills that the House of Commons will learn to regret. Those of who us who have been here for some time have seen it over and over again. The previous Government set the abominable precedent of tabling 400 amendments, in some cases, at a late stage of legislation. When I sat in the Chair I found that unacceptable, and I would find it unacceptable if my own Government did the same thing.
Tonight, we have on the Front Bench a Minister whose tact, ability and civilised intelligence marks him out as suitable for any Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that I have not damaged my hon. Friend's career irrevocably by saying that. He understands the importance of the rights of individual Back Benchers. If we allow this procedure to continue consistently, automatically or unquestioned—as if it were something that we had to accept because that was, the way in which Governments proceed—we will do a disservice not only to the House of Commons and to those who expect us to pass legislation that is acceptable, but to ourselves.
I am proud to be a Member of Parliament; I have been here for a long time. I am proud of the ability of individual Members to have an influence on legislation. I find the increasing tendency of Governments—including, I am sorry to say, my own—of moving forward on this basis not only unacceptable, but something that I deeply regret. I did not want this occasion to go past as though it were a ritual dance involving people rolling out arguments simply to hold up the Bill without any serious thinking. I believe that the House of Commons should think about what it is doing. The motion is wrong, unhelpful and does us all enormous harm.

Mr. Blunt: I follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with trepidation, given her experience in the House. However, I wholly agree with what she said. I particularly want to reinforce the remarks of my right hon. and hon. Friends—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman short.
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 130.

Division No. 40]
[11.29 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Atherton, Ms Candy



Atkins, Charlotte


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Austin, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bailey, Adrian





Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Barron, Kevin
Edwards, Huw


Battle, John
Efford, Clive


Bayley, Hugh
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beard, Nigel
Ennis, Jeff


Begg, Miss Anne
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Fearn, Ronnie


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Betts, Clive
Flint, Caroline


Blackman, Liz
Flynn, Paul


Blears, Ms Hazel
Follett, Barbara


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gapes, Mike


Breed, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gerrard, Neil


Browne, Desmond
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gidley, Sandra


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grogan, John


Casale, Roger
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chaytor, David
Hancock, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hendrick, Mark


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Simon (Southward N)


Cousins, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cranston, Ross
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)



Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dobbin, Jim
Joyce, Eric


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keetch, Paul






Kemp, Fraser
Pike, Peter L


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prosser, Gwyn


Laxton, Bob
Purchase, Ken


Leslie, Christopher
Rammell, Bill


Levitt, Tom
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Livsey, Richard
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lock, David



Love, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McDonnell, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McFall, John
Sanders, Adrian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sarwar, Mohammad


McIsaac, Shona
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McNulty, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


MacShane, Denis
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Maxton, John
Spellar, John


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meale, Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Miller, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mitchell, Austin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moffatt, Laura
Stringer, Graham


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)




Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mountford, Kali
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Todd, Mark


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Touhig, Don


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Öpik, Lembit
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tyler, Paul


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tynan, Bill


Palmer, Dr Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pearson, Ian
Walley, Ms Joan


Perham, Ms Linda
Ward, Ms Claire


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N





watts, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


White, Brian
Wood, Mike


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Woodward, Shaun


Wicks, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wray, James



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wills, Michael
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Winnick, David
Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Letwin, Oliver


Amess, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lidington, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Baldry, Tony
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beggs, Roy
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Body, Sir Richard
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brady, Graham
Madel, Sir David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maples, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Burnett, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Burns, Simon
May, Mrs Theresa


Cash, William
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman Sir sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Nicholls, Patrick



Norman, Archie


Chope, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Clappison, James
Ottaway, Richard


Collins, Tim
Page, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paice, James


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Curry, Rt Hon David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Randall, John


Day, Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gibb, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen Anthony


Gummer Rt Hon John



Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Streeter, Gary


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Hayes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Horam, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, William


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Trend, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Tyrie, Andrew


Key, Robert
Walter, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Waterson, Nigel


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wells, Bowen


Lansley, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Leigh, Edward
Whittingdale, John






Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson. John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Wilshire, David



Yeo, Tim
and


Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

Select Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.
2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday 15th March.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES BILL (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move motion 4, relating to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I must tell the House that I have selected the manuscript amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) Copies of the amendment are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following that helpful information, I should be grateful if you clarified what the voting procedure will be and whether or not the matter will be subject to a deferred Division. If that is so, how will the House deal with an amendment to a matter that may be subject to a deferred Division? It would be very helpful if you were to guide the House on the conduct of this business in the light of your having selected a manuscript amendment.

Mr. Speaker: There will be a vote if the House wishes to divide on either the amendment or the motion. That Division will take place this evening, or this morning—or whatever.

Mr. Spellar: As I recall, it is always today.
I beg to move,
That Rachel Squire, Mr. John Spellar, Dr Lewis Moonie, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Dave Watts, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Randall and Mr. Paul Keetch be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.
The Select Committee examining the Bill will have a vital role to fulfil on behalf of the House. It will subject to careful scrutiny proposed legislation which, because it is important to the armed forces, is it important to us all. The hon. Members listed in the motion I appear to me to be fully capable of discharging that function, and I extend that generous characterisation not only to my hon. Friends, but to Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) served with distinction on the Select Committee that considered the previous Armed Forces Bill, and I am sure that the Committee will benefit from his experience.
I also advise the House that we are pleased to accept the manuscript amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Key: We realise that it is an unusual Committee and we accept the tradition that three be its quorum. It is extremely important that the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to adjourn from place to place to allow it to take evidence in places other than London. In principle, the motion is an attractive proposition.
However, one or two points need to be made. It is unfortunate that it has been the tradition that this Select Committee does not have the powers to appoint other specialist advisers so that it can obtain information. We therefore very much welcome the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). It represents sensible progress and it will assist the Committee. It will provide discomfort for the Government, because the Committee will be better informed.
I also have absolutely no difficulty with the individuals whom the House seeks to appoint to the Committee, but I have a good deal of difficulty with its composition compared with the one that considered the previous quinquennial Bill. It is worth reminding the House that, in 1996, the Committee's business was conducted with just one Minister, who turned up only for those sessions at which he was strictly required. The Committee felt no constraint about whom it asked for evidence and what it asked from a Government breathing down its neck. It had one parliamentary private secretary, no Whips on either side, one shadow Minister and four Conservative and four Labour Back Benchers. Eight of a Committee of 11 were Back Benchers. That made it an effective and model Committee.
That is in stark contrast to the composition and balance of the Committee this time. As several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it will be dominated by the Executive and the Opposition have had to fulfil their role and shadow that structure. We suggested that it would be appropriate to have a bigger Committee, but the Government were not willing to concede that point.

Mr. Gummer: Before my hon. Friend castigates the Government alone, has he noticed that the Opposition Members of the Committee are all trusties? Because the Government members are all trusties, the Opposition members are all trusties. The Liberal Democrats have a trusty too, so is it not time that we recognised that the purpose of a Select Committee is have a few "untrusties" on it? It is the duty of the Government to make space for "untrusties". [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I had hoped that Labour Members would not say that, because I am trying to make the Government think in the depths of their heart that a bit of friendly fire from Labour Members might result in a better Select Committee.

Mr. Key: We must bear it in mind that, as far as the Government are concerned, all Opposition Members are untrusties, and we will of course play that role in the delightful, mischievous terms in which my right


hon. Friend puts it. Given that only three Opposition Members are being suggested for membership of the Committee, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend feels that we will all do the Government's bidding; I assure him that we will not. I think that I shall be the only member of the Committee who went through the process last time round, so I will know where the bodies are buried and where the elephant traps lie.
When we get into Committee, we will consider whether we are to meet only on Tuesday mornings or on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. I want to make it clear now, as I will do in Committee, that Opposition Members will sit for as many hours as it takes. We will be happy to sit not only on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, but on Tuesday afternoons and evenings, until midnight or whatever hour is necessary to get the work done.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's assurance about how hard Opposition Members will work. Does he agree, however, that it is extraordinary to suggest that we might work hard when Government Front Benchers have not told us what the Committee is to do, or where and when it is to do it? Is not that information lacking?

Mr. Key: It has always been the case that until we get into Committee we do not know exactly what the programme will be or how long it will take. That is in the nature of a Select Committee. Any Select Committee starts by saying, "Let's investigate something." It then has business sittings at which it decides exactly what it will do. The difference on this occasion is that we have been told when the end date must be, which limits our powers of investigation on behalf of the House.
I find it extraordinary that the Government have known for four years that the Bill was coming, exactly what would be involved and what they wanted to include in it; they have listened to representations from previous Select Committees and had the opportunity to talk to the Chairmen of the Committees; yet it took them until nearly midnight tonight to concede that the Committee can have specialists for whom Parliament is prepared to pay. That represents mismanagement, and I hope that the Government will say why they have been bounced into that action by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South. I am grateful to him for persuading the Government to take that action, which will be of great benefit, but we will greatly miss him and his colleagues from the Committee in our deliberations on the Bill.

Mr. Wilshire: I am reassured to hear that my hon. Friend supports the amendment in principle. Is he aware, however, that while some of his colleagues might agree with him on the principle of the amendment, we find the detail unacceptable? He says that the amendment will be accepted, but that is not necessarily true as regards all the Members on the Benches behind him.

Mr. Key: That is my hon. Friend's prerogative; no doubt he will do his own thing.
It is to the credit of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South that the motion is on the Order Paper. However, I find it extraordinary that while the previous Committee

scrutinised a longer, more complicated Bill with one Minister and no Whips, the Government side of this Committee will be packed with trusties, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) calls them.
We will support the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, and we will therefore be able to support the motion on the Armed Forces Bill.

Mr. Leigh: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he reflect on the reasons why the amendment has been accepted? Does he think that the Government have accepted it because of its intrinsic merits or because, above all else, following yesterday's debacle, when they were unable to get their business through because only a handful of Government Members were still here, they fear a vote in the early hours of the morning?

Mr. Key: I read last night's Division lists and was surprised by them I suspect that my hon. Friend is correct. I deplore what happened—it is a bad way to run the House of Commons, and the Government will live to regret it, because some of us care very much, and in the long term, about parliamentary democracy in this country and the way in which they are eroding it.

Mr. Eric Forth: I regret to say that I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in supporting either the motion or the manuscript amendment. The first reason for that is the circumstances that appear to surround the acceptance of that amendment, although I must confess that I am encouraged that accepting such an amendment to such a motion has enabled the House to vote on them during this sitting. We must give those matters considerable attention, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, for demonstrating that innovative procedure.
Having said that, however, I deplore the fact that the amendment has been tabled through a process with which we are becoming all too familiar, whereby the Government table a substantive motion at the last minute, leaving no proper time for consideration by the House. The Chairman of the Defence Committee has been forced to table a manuscript amendment and, again, we have no proper time for debate.

Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government might have realised that the manuscript amendment was necessary had there been an interval between the debates on Second Reading and on the guillotine motion? Indeed, had they done so, they would have been spared embarrassment this evening. Do not these events prove what he said last night: the real problem is the way in which such issues are squashed together, giving no time for proper consideration?

Mr. Forth: I should say that the Government are immune to embarrassment. Although they should feel embarrassed frequently, they are incapable of being embarrassed over such things, which is a matter of great regret to me. However, my right hon. Friend is correct. The Order Paper contains a classic example of how the Government presume on the House to introduce a series


of linked measures, each in its own way dependent on the other, but give Members no time for proper consideration of the content of each, whether each should be accepted and whether amendments are required to make sense of the relationship between the measures.
I shall deal with the motion before discussing the manuscript amendment. The Minister for the Armed Forces, who introduced the measure all too briefly, has left the Chamber. During the previous debate, the Under—Secretary of State for Defence said—with some pride, I thought—that the matter was consensual and that the Select Committee would operate in such a fashion. He added, rather lamely, that the Committee would not be uncritical. From the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury went on, at some length, to stress how far and how frequently the Committee would travel and how well all its members would get on together. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave the lie to all that by suggesting that the Committee would be a cosy travelling circus. Those are not quite the words he used, but they give the sense of his remarks.
The so-called Select Committee will be a cosy club of like-minded people travelling together in a consensual way. That is not good enough and completely unacceptable. What sort of criticism and scrutiny of the measure will be provided by a group of people of the kind who have been described? The proposed membership, which we must consider, gives a further lie to what has been said. The members will be cosy and consensual and will travel great distances together on our behalf.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the membership is grotesquely white?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me to go into the matters of gender, ethnicity, regional representation and many other aspects of the Committee. I did not intend to go into that, but I may be tempted, because it is relevant to the measure before us.
The House is being asked to give consideration to the members proposed for the Committee I am surprised that the Government have not given due consideration to the question whether there is proper ethnic balance and gender balance, and whether the different parts of the country are properly represented on the Committee. That is a matter to which the House should give consideration. I may come back to it later in my remarks, but I do not want to be diverted from my main purpose at this stage.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will allow me to say that the way in which his intervention was presented was a little more lighthearted than it might have been. However, two of the areas that will be most affected by the Bill are in the east of England. I see no member of the proposed Committee who has any connection with those areas. Would my right hon. Friend say that some regional consideration would have been reasonable?

Mr. Forth: I will digress briefly on that point, as it is highly relevant. Such a Committee will travel extensively throughout the United Kingdom and beyond—as we heard, the previous Committee went to Cyprus and

Germany. I could almost feel my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury vibrating with excitement at the thought of where this Committee might travel, and I could almost sense him devising an itinerary in his mind, as he thought where the Committee might go on our behalf and on behalf of the benighted taxpayers of this country.

Mr. Key: I give my right hon. Friend an undertaking that I will not suggest that we visit Bromley. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who is a proposed member of the Committee, represents one of the largest Royal Air Force communities in the east of England.

Mr. Forth: That is extremely reassuring. It may go some way to answering the query raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.

Mr. Gummer: On a geographical point, those of us who live in Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex—I regret to mention that word—would not consider that the Committee provides a proper representation of the east of England.

Mr. Forth: I do not want to get drawn into a geographic dispute between my right hon. and hon. Friends. The point almost makes itself. It is self-evidently vital that the Committee should have thorough, comprehensive regional representation from all parts of the United Kingdom, in order better to understand the importance of the military in the different parts of the kingdom and to do its work properly. I do not judge that the proposed membership gives proper regional representation. The Committee is defective in that respect.
I will leave others to judge whether the gender balance is appropriate. I do not want to get drawn into that and, despite the helpful intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I do not want to get drawn into the matter of ethnicity.

Mr. Wilshire: I urge my right hon. Friend to revisit the matter of the gender balance. As he is aware, the question whether women should serve in the front line of the infantry is relevant. If the Select Committee is to consider that matter, should there not be a woman on the Committee to bring that perspective to the argument?

Mr. Forth: We are constantly told by Labour Members how proud they are of the number of lady Members in the House, yet I should have expected more representation of those lady Members than is proposed. I shall go no further than that. But one can see already the difficulty into which we are getting with the proposed membership of the Committee. Whether we talk about gender, ethnicity or regional representation, on almost every one of those criteria the suggested membership fails completely.
That does not even begin to deal with why we must have two Ministers on the Committee plus sundry members of the payroll. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury in his consensual mood, and wanting, as he undoubtedly does, to see the Committee working harmoniously, would surely concede that to have so many members of the payroll, to say nothing of the Opposition


payroll if there is such a thing, on the Committee would hardly suggest that there will be a grain of sand in this particular oyster in order to produce parliamentary pearls.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Forth: Talking of which, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend may be missing the point. He is being unfair to our hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We can rely on our hon. Friend to be the kind of forthright Opposition spokesman that he is, of this Committee and on this Committee. But that is not what a Select Committee should be. The real danger is that this will develop more and more into a kind of Standing Committee, where the Opposition put their arguments, piling into the Government, and the Government are set defending their line again and again, and it will not be a consensual Select Committee looking at the merits of the case, which is what it should be.

Mr. Forth: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. He and I rarely disagree, but on this occasion we must. If we are talking about the consideration of legislative matters, or quasi or pseudo legislative matters, consensus is not appropriate. I believe in confrontation because I believe devoutly that where we have consensus in the House of Commons, we fail properly to scrutinise and we end up with inadequate measures. My worry here is that the nature of the proposed composition of the Committee gives no guarantee that we shall have a sharp-edged critical approach from which we are likely to obtain proper results.
It is undoubtedly true that we will have a payroll-dominated Committee. Whether both Ministers will attend the Committee properly and give it their proper attention is another matter about which we should be concerned. As was pointed out, on a previous occasion Ministers were hardly ever present. On this occasion, that might be a blessing. We might well welcome the fact that Ministers will hardly ever attend the Committee because it might well do better work as a result. But why, we have to ask at this stage, is it being proposed that two Ministers be members of the Committee? Hundreds of Back Benchers would no doubt be eager to serve on the Committee provided that their passports were in order and they were able to enjoy the benefits of Committee membership. But here we have a Committee packed with the Government's payroll, so there is another problem that I have with it.
Then we come to the matter of expertise and qualifications. I do not want to embarrass any of the members of the Committee who have been suggested by seeking to examine in public and in detail their qualifications or lack of them. I will leave that to right hon. and hon. Members to consider themselves. But we must ask what is the relevance of the qualifications and background of the members of the Committee. I shall not mention them individually, I simply raise the question because it is relevant. All in all, the membership of the Committee is wrong on almost every conceivable count, consideration and criterion, and for that reason I cannot accept it.
I come now to the Committee's quorum. A number of measures on today's Order Paper suggest quorums of two or three for various Committees, and I am concerned about that development in the House because it suggests a number of things. The first is that the Government have no confidence that a Committee can expect more than two or three of its members to turn up at any one time and be able properly to conduct its business. More sinisterly, it also suggests the possibility of a Committee being convened and doing its work with as few as two or, on this occasion, three people present, being able effectively to legislate on behalf of Britain's voters and taxpayers. Can we be satisfied that a quorum of three is adequate to give proper scrutiny and consideration to any measure? I suggest that it cannot be. The quorum of any Committee in the House should be much higher than three.

Mr. Graham Brady: Given the composition of the Committee and the fact that three Ministers will sit on it, Ministers alone could form a quorum for it. Is that not an abuse?

Mr. Forth: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. In fact, it is probably inadequate to describe what could happen on the Committee as sinister. If, tonight, the House of Commons endorses the proposal that the Committee has a quorum of three, my hon. Friend is right that the Committee could discharge its functions with solely three Ministers present and voting on measures. Surely, that is not acceptable.

Mr. Spellar: What was the quorum of the Committee set up by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government when such a Bill was last considered?

Mr. Forth: I am not remotely interested in the quorum on some past occasion.

Mr. Spellar: Did the right hon. Gentleman oppose the quorum for the Bill in the previous Government?

Mr. Forth: No—[Laughter.] I was on the payroll, which is why I did not oppose it. That is the point that I am trying to make The Minister, who is now on the payroll, seems to think it highly amusing that a Committee can be proposed in which the quorum consists solely of those on the payroll.

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that the Minister spent a great deal of time guffawing, which usually means that he is embarrassed by what my hon. Friends say—[Laughter.] The fact that he is guffawing again shows that he is clearly embarrassed.
The Committee to which the Minister referred had one Minister on it, but the Committee to which my right hon. Friend refers will have three Ministers on it. If there are three Ministers and a quorum of three, that means that the Ministers can carry out the Committee's business on their own. That is not something that Parliament should accept under any circumstances.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Frankly, I am rather surprised that my colleagues on the shadow Front Bench are prepared to endorse that proposal. At this stage, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) depicted a


scenario in which three members of the Government alone would constitute a quorum in the Committee and enable it to make progress. Does my right hon Friend agree that a more disturbing scenario is a quorum of two members of the payroll vote and a member of what might be described as the Government's new robot tendency? The combination of two Ministers, or of one Minister and the Government Whip, would suffice to ensure that they got their way. Would that not directly contradict the very notion of the Select Committee, which, absurdly, the Committee purports to be?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may be right. However, if the Committee is as consensual as has been suggested, no such events would occur. Let me give my hon. Friend another scenario. Suppose that two members of the payroll and only one Opposition Member were present. The Committee could still discharge its duties, based on a quorum of three, and the Government could get their way, with only two Ministers present.
All those possibilities start to arise, unless the prospect of travel is so attractive that all the Committee members are always present. The Committee may have it in mind to travel extensively, because that would give its members an incentive always to attend. In that case, I hope that Ministers would be so busy making a mess of other business that they would not have time to attend the Committee, so it might just have a chance of doing some proper impartial work. The quorum suggestion is therefore unacceptable and, for that reason alone, I shall not support the motion.
Then there is the rather coy reference in the motion, to which I have made glancing allusion. In the quaint parliamentary language that we use, partly to deceive the taxpayer, the motion states:
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.
That is the open airline ticket that hon. Members choose to vote themselves from time to time. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a year or two ago, we voted ourselves an equally open airline ticket to travel to European Union capitals. I am minded to table a parliamentary question to ascertain how many hon. Members have availed themselves of that privilege. It is always an interesting question to ask.
When the Committee concludes its work, whether that happens before the general election or not—another interesting consideration, given the suggested timetable— the results may be revealing if an hon. Member tables a parliamentary question to ascertain the Committee's itinerary. We might even ask about the cost so that we can work out for ourselves the value for money that the taxpayer receives from the Committee when it
adjourns from place to place.

Mr. Wilshire: When my right hon. Friend considers tabling such questions, will he bear it in mind that one of the key matters that exercises the Royal Navy is whether we should keep a warship in the West Indies?. Would it be a good use of taxpayers' money to send the Committee to the West Indies to ascertain what the guard ship has

done in the past and whether it should continue to do that? A trip to the West Indies is the sort of matter that worries my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Forth: I wish that my hon. Friend had not put the idea in people's minds. I hope that no more such interventions will be made.

Mr. Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Only if my hon. Friend promises not to add another suggested destination to the itinerary.

Mr. Robathan: I should not dream of doing that. However, there is a large deployment to the Falkland Islands, which are further away than the West Indies. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Falkland Islands constitute an important destination for the Committee?

Mr. Forth: I shall leave that for other hon. Members to consider. We have made the point more than adequately that behind the phrase,
adjourn from place to place
lies more than most taxpayers would care to stomach.
Let us consider the manuscript amendment. It is a quaint device, but it has helpfully opened up all sorts of new possibilities in the new procedural world in which we live. The Modernisation Committee has given us a new parliamentary world in which to operate; it can also excite, interest and amuse us. I welcome the new early nights that the House is experiencing, and look forward to more.
However, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, for revealing another procedural quirk. Doubtless the Modernisation Committee anticipated it as it anticipated so much else that now happens in the House. Apparently, if a manuscript amendment is accepted—that has happened to the one that we are considering—it gives the House the opportunity to divide in the traditional way at the end of the debate. That is proper and I welcome it because there will be a Division if I have anything to do the matter. As the Speaker explained usefully a short time ago, the House can also divide on the substantive motion. We can look forward to that when we finish the "until any hour" deliberations that the Order Paper kindly allows us.
I regret that I must differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, but I cannot accept the manuscript amendment that the Chairman of the Defence Committee has tabled. Although the term "specialists" may have a ring of authenticity and integrity for some people, it may be wiser to limit the number of specialists who could be recruited at taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify that while it has been said that the amendment will be accepted for debate, it has not yet been moved?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is correct. The amendment has not yet been formally moved.

Mr. Forth: That is excellent, because if it is not moved, I shall not have to oppose it. However, as it was implied that an amendment had been accepted, it is in order for us to debate it now. I am trying to do that.
We do not know whether the number of specialists that can be recruited at taxpayers' expense will be limited. I presume that there is no such limit. We have no idea who they might be or in what capacity they may be recruited. We do not know whether they will be able to travel with the Committee on its extensive travels or whether they will be restricted to meetings that take place here when the Committee sits—probably rather rarely—in London.
I am mystified about just what role the specialists will be able to play. We should give some thought to whether those specialists, if they are to be of use to the Committee, will have to travel with it when it is out and about and adjourning from place to place. Unless I were much more satisfied about the limits to be imposed on what is at present an open-ended provision, I for one would oppose the manuscript amendment were it to be moved.
I find the motion utterly unacceptable. Its form and procedures are unacceptable, and the House has not been given enough time to consider it. Although I welcome the precedent set by the manuscript amendment, we have no time in which to give it proper consideration. We are having to take part in the debate unguided, because we do not know what lies behind the proposal. We do not know whether there are any limitations or qualifications, what it might cost, or anything else.
At this stage, I intend—and I hope to persuade others to join me—to oppose the measure, and the amendment if it is moved. I want the Government to take the proposal away, and bring it back in a much more acceptable form.

Mr. Bruce George: In response to popular demand, I beg to move the manuscript amendment, in line 7, at end add
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.
I do so with some anxiety, trepidation and regret, because I had hoped that the amendment would be considered seriously.
I am not a devotee of the Chamber, having decided long ago that it was far better to involve oneself in the Select Committee system, in which I am delighted to have participated since 1979 when it was adopted. Having listened to the debate, I must say that I am pleased with the wisdom that I employed then: it is indeed far better to confine oneself to the Select Committee system than to indulge in debates that are artificial and irrelevant, and will hardly lead to any improvement in the public's estimation of the House.
We are discussing serious issues. We are discussing the procedures of the House, the control of the House by the Executive and why we should fight against it, and a range of important matters affecting our armed forces, including discipline, the future of the forces, and their relationship with their employers and with each other. It demeans the armed forces and the procedures of the House when—

Mr. Forth: How pompous.

Mr. George: Labour Members do not have a monopoly on pomposity. I have listened to some amazing

pomposity. Let us do a deal: I will stop being pompous and be brief, if the right hon. Gentleman will stop being pompous and decide to be brief. That is a fair exchange.
I tabled the amendment with a reasonable intention. My motives were simple. I have been a member of three Select Committees considering Armed Forces Bills. I did not volunteer to serve on the Committee on this Bill because the Chairman of the Defence Committee has a busy agenda. Moreover, following 25 years of campaigning, a Government have introduced legislation to regulate the private security industry, and I want to be on the Standing Committee that considers that Bill. I therefore excluded myself—although that may have been superfluous, because the Whips excluded all members of the Defence Committee anyway, so even if I had wished to be a member there is no guarantee that I would have been.
Why did I table the amendment? An Opposition Member asked with some indignation why the Government had not included the ability to appoint an adviser to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. An adviser has never been attached to that Select Committee, and it has shown. I thought that it was time— even though I was not going to be on the Select Committee—for it perhaps to have one additional weapon in dealing with the overbearing Executive, which would help, if not to rebalance the relationship, at least to give Back Benchers on the Select Committee the opportunity of hearing advice that was independent of the Ministry of Defence.
Although I have rarely found an occasion on which the MOD has lied, it regularly withholds information; it has withheld information for as long as I have been on the Defence Committee. As we know, the MOD can be economical with the truth. Therefore, the idea of relying on the MOD, however competent civil servants and Ministers are, is profoundly unwise.
Select Committees on the Armed Forces Bills have gone, if not into competition, into an impossible relationship with the Executive. By definition, the Executive will win because the Whips are able to put their men and, occasionally, women on to the Committee. They have a near monopoly of information because the subjects that they are putting before the House in legislation are not aspects of defence that we can all rabbit on about to our heart's content after a morning read of The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian providing us with more than enough information, allied to a natural ability to spin out nothing to endless length.
The issues within the Bill are beyond that level of inventiveness. They require an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge. An enormous amount of time needs to be spent studying the matter even before the first Committee sitting. Then we come up against the MOD, which has spent the past five years gathering the information. It drafts the legislation. It steers it through. Against that formidable adversary is a group of hand-picked individuals who are not always known for their interest in defence. It is a grossly unequal task.
I had no wish for an army of advisers, as we have on the Defence Committee.

Mr. Brady: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument and am sympathetic to his case. Does he not accept that, given the composition of the Committee and


the fact that the payroll vote dominates it to such an extent, there is little hope of specialist advisers being appointed who are genuinely independent and who can undertake the scrutiny that he would like?

Mr. George: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think that he was here earlier when I argued strongly that the composition of the Committee was, frankly—let me choose my words carefully—appalling, and should never ever be repeated. Any legislature worth its salt would not allow a Committee to be composed on that basis. Rather than making silly points, we should spend some of our time doing something to reverse the inexorable decline in which the House has acquiesced over the past 50 years. If we had wanted the legislature to be a proper legislature, we would not have connived in our decline into semi-superfluity. In a tiny way, the amendment is an attempt to provide a Committee that is better composed.
Regrettably, the adviser will be in an invidious position because the Committee will be dominated by sets of executives: the actual Executive, the supporters of the Executive and those who aspire to be the Executive. If that poor adviser is ever appointed, he or she will be joining a Committee on which there is likely to be little chance of genuinely acting on any advice that may be given.

Mr. Robathan: I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with everything that he is saying. I am not making a partisan point. To a large extent, I agree with his amendment, but, from everything that he has said, he must agree that we cannot accept the motion because, as he said, it is appalling for the Executive to try to foist such a Committee on the House. It is a denial of democracy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

Mr. George: Hon. Members on both sides of the House connived at this because Government members were chosen by Government Whips and the smaller number of Opposition members were chosen by the Opposition's methods. As a consequence, my calculations show that there is only one genuine Back-Bench Member on the Committee, and that is my hon. and good Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Somebody thought that there were no female members of the Committee. In fact, there are two including the Chairman. Perhaps the hon. Member who did not notice that there were two females should do what I will be doing and start cleaning his glasses.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: In a moment. I had not intended to speak at length.

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Mr. George: All right, I will give way.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman has just said something en passant that rather disturbed us. He seemed to suggest that he knew the identity of the Committee

Chairman. Can he tell the House by what process the Chairman of the putative Committee was selected, and can he tell us their identity?

Mr. George: If I had any ability to compose the membership of the Committee, I would indeed have a great deal of influence. My role in the drafting in of members was, I am afraid, non-existent.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: I have given way several times. I promise that I will give way later.
The wording that I chose was lifted almost entirely from the normal rules of Select Committees, which were drafted in 1979 under the tutelage of former Conservative Leader of the House Lord St. John of Fawsley. If there is any criticism of the wording, I suggest that hon. Members drag him to the House and ask him to explain. I have simply used the words that are to be found in every Select Committee report.
Without going into the detail of my academic interest in Select Committees or defence committees throughout the world, I can say that the Select Committee set-up was an aberration, and that this process is a further aberration built on top of it. When I think about countries that have committees with such a lack of power, I think of—there is a degree of hyperbole in this—Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. It does not apply to Russia because the Duma is far more powerful than we are. All the mock eastern European regimes have now jumped over our heads as legislatures and have bestowed on their committees the power to legislate and to participate in the budgetary process. They have the power to scrutinise appointments to office. They have real confirmation hearings, not the bogus virtual confirmation hearings that we have. Before we glory in the majesty of this House, I suggest that we use our ability to travel to Europe once a year and see how the Europeans operate a legislature. They put us to shame.
I meet members of the defence committees of many countries from around the world. They say that I am the Chairman of a powerful Committee in the mother of Parliaments, and ask me for advice on how the Committee operates. They ask me what power I have in the budgetary process. I have to be frank, and tell them that I have no such power. I admit to them that the House of Commons does not have much of a role in the budgetary process. That process is controlled by the Ministry of Defence, which presents the budget to the Select Committee throughout the year. We can hold amiable seminars, but we have not the slightest influence on the size or shape of the defence budget.
The Select Committee is unable to do what its counterparts in most countries can. We cannot raise the budget, or allocate money from one account to another. Our role in the budgetary process is slight. We need advice, and a return of the power taken from us in 1979.
My counterparts from around the world ask me what power I have to legislate. I tell them candidly that I have none whatever. Defence legislation is rare, and when it is introduced it does not come before the Defence Committee. We can hold hearings, and pass a report on to the Standing Committee that is to be established,


but we are out of the loop. I say that members of the Defence Committee used to have one opportunity every five years to participate in the legislative process, when we were able to transfer almost en masse to the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill. However, I have to add that we are no longer able to do that.
I am then asked what power over policy I have. I say that the Defence Committee is able to undertake amazing studies that resemble royal commissions, and that we have great advisers. I am not embarrassed to tell the House that at least 20 advisers are attached to the Defence Committee, at an annual cost of £12,000. I consider that to be an amazing investment by the House in gathering heads of policy institutes, former military personnel, excellent academics—all of them people who can add to our limited knowledge of defence matters. I feel not the slightest guilt at the fact that we have such a formidable group of people to give us advice. That is one reason why I believe that the boon enjoyed by the Defence Committee could be transferred—albeit ephemerally—to the hybrid Committee that is being set up. So it is clear that when I describe the Defence Committee to outsiders I have to say that it has no powers of legislation and no real influence in the procurement process.
Eight months ago, the Ministry of Defence made a big procurement decision. It did not ask for the Committee's advice or allow us to play a part. We wrote to the Ministry to ask why a particular company or consortium was chosen over any other, and we were informed that we would be told in good time—when the companies that had lost the bid had been informed of the decision.
The Ministry will not even tell the Committee why it made the decision that it made. I point no finger at current Ministers, who I believe are about the best that I have come across in 20 years' experience in the Select Committee system. Despite what Opposition Members may think, I say that with no trace of deference or grovelling.
There are two dozen Select Committees in the system. I have pointed out the weakness of the Defence Committee, which I consider to be among the best of all the Committees. We try to be innovative, and to push back the boundaries—for example, by holding confirmation hearings. We insist on all pieces of delegated legislation—however boring or trivial—coming before the Committee, because it is incumbent upon us to investigate the minutiae of policy administration and expenditure.
Yes, we travel but—I am sorry to embarrass the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)— I almost insist that we travel in such a way as to make it impossible for carping criticism that we are junketeers. The Falkland Islands is an important place to visit, but the visitor may get a dose of radiation because there is a hole in the ozone layer. I insisted that we went to the Gulf in April; it was hot—damned hot—and hardly conducive to enjoyment. We spent our time working. We went to Russia in December because I believe that we should be seen not to be swanning around the world, but doing a difficult job on behalf of this House.
I have sought to allay the fears of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that Committees are there exclusively for the purpose of providing Thomas

Cook or American Express with a large income. Most Select Committees do a good job, and part of that must be attributed to those Committees that are prepared to seek advice.
Eventually, I hope that the House will see a transfer from words to action. The Liaison Committee produced a report a few months ago and had the temerity to say that Select Committees should perhaps be outside the grip of the Whips. Now that we have seen the Committee about which we are talking being selected in this way, the wisdom of the Liaison Committee is more apparent. The day will come when Members on both sides of the House will get together and say that the overwhelming dominance of the Executive must come to an end. A legislature must legislate and share decision making with the Executive. It must do more than hold the Executive to account. There is expertise in this place which needs a bigger role in decision making. However, that talent is totally unharnessed.

Mr. Chope: The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and important speech. The Executive have indicated that they are prepared to accept his amendment. Has he any guarantee that they will exercise the power that would be given by the amendment to appoint specialist advisers? Can he advise the House as to the procedure he thinks should be undertaken to enable the best specialist advisers to be appointed? How long does he think that will take? Does he think that that will be consistent with the strict timetable that has been laid down?

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman makes a practical suggestion—I say that even though I am not on the Committee. Very few academics specialise in the narrow area of law relating to national security. They will be poachers turned gamekeepers: people who have retired from the MOD but who may be prepared to offer their services. One or two excellent academics might participate and I shall make my suggestions to whoever the Chairman is.
One of the great roles that a Select Committee can play is to abandon, as far as is possible in this place— [Interruption.] I pay homage to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), my regional Whip, regularly, and will do so again. If all Members were as loyal in voting as I am, my hon. Friend would be exceedingly happy. The main purpose of a Select Committee is not to replicate the bear-garden atmosphere of this place. One bear garden is quite enough. The main purpose of a Select Committee is not simply to offer advice and show the Executive that a group of people is watching closely. It has a positive as well as a negative role. I believe that the main purpose is to find an agreement between the parties, if possible.
The parliamentary environment is constructed to create an adversarial atmosphere. Frankly, I am not convinced that opposing for the sake of opposing, and providing loyalty for the sake of loyalty and careers, constitutes the best ways to legislate. In most Select Committees, people have to get along. The Committee of which I am Chairman consists of people of widely differing political views. We strive very hard to find common agreement— and not common agreement based on the smart writing of an intelligent Clerk who could provide a form of words of such inconsequence that everybody could agree with


them. We try to produce reports that are hard hitting and make life quite difficult for the Executive. There have been excellent Defence Committee Chairmen over the years, such as the late Michael Colvin. Tim Kitson, for example, did not know much about defence but was a superb Chairman.
I have continued in the tradition of not using a majority to trample on the interests of a minority. The last vote in the Defence Committee was in 1981. It could be said that that is a Soviet-style, monolithic approach to policy. It is not. It is our job to give Ministers, whatever their political hue, a difficult time. As one very senior ex-permanent secretary said to me, "The better the Committee is, the better we are."
The Defence Committee has given Ministers a bad time over the Territorial Army and over the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, an issue which has not gone away as far as we are concerned. We produced a report on Kosovo which was difficult to write because it meant criticising NATO, an organisation which I love, and my many friends within it. I am proud that the Committee that I chaired was prepared, with our advisers, to produce a hard-hitting report that swam against the tide and said the unpalatable things that needed to be said.
The Defence Committee has created difficulties both for the previous Government and for the present Government, on all sorts of issues including the annual defence budget. The last report that we produced in the previous Parliament said that defence expenditure had fallen to such a low level under the previous Government that, should it fall any further, it would endanger the defence of the realm. That report was produced mainly by Conservatives, who had the guts to say to the Ministry of Defence that defence expenditure had fallen to dangerous levels. Having been part of that tradition, how could I turn my Committee into a Supreme Sovier-type Committee, eulogising its leaders? What was done was not popular, but it had to be done.
I hope that the Committee that has been formed by the present aberrant process will deliver the goods. If it is to make difficulties for the Executive, it will surely mean an act of masochism and self-abuse. The people who will be critical are those whom the Committee will be criticising, so I am not entirely convinced that the critical faculty that should be exercised on behalf of this House will be exercised.
The last point—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends will have to stay anyway—and not because of me. However, it may be better to listen to me than listening all night to Opposition Members.
Finally, I apologise to my colleagues if my intention, which was noble, has been or will be distorted into an attempt to keep them here longer than normal—although one of the few weapons that an Opposition have is time.
I hope that the Committee, of which I am not a member, will do a good job, will do it competently and will fearlessly criticise the Executive—although I doubt it. Above all, I hope that when the next Select Committee on an Armed Forces Bill is constituted, the lessons of this Committee will be learned and the Executive will loosen their grip and allow more Back Benchers to play a part in the scrutiny process. I hope that the lessons will be learned and I commend the amendment with apologies for taking rather too long. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Spellar: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) will imagine, I do not entirely accept the rationale for his amendment, nor the way in which he put it. However, I believe that the terms of the amendment are right and that is why, as I said, we are pleased to accept it and to incorporate it into the motion.
My right hon. Friend slightly overdid his grievance about the composition of the Committee, especially as he said earlier that he had said that he did not want to serve on it. Other members of the Select Committee on Defence also said that they did not want to serve on the special Committee.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I am not aware that he sought the leave of the House to speak again in the debate. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the mover of the motion, the Minister has a complete right to speak at this point.

Mr. Spellar: My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South also referred to inconveniencing the Executive. In speaking for some half an hour at this time of night, he did not inconvenience the Executive so much as his Back-Bench colleagues.
Having dealt with the family dispute on our Benches, I shall intrude into that on the Opposition Benches, but only briefly. Again, I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, but I appreciate his balanced approach and I look forward to working with him on the Committee to the benefit of our armed forces.
As I said, we accept the amendment and we commend it and the motion to the House.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to have heard the speech by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), which was a cri de coeur on behalf not only of Select Committees and their Chairmen, but of hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that an important issue is at stake—the balance of responsibility between the Executive and the legislature. He raised several important issues. Although I hope to follow the right hon. Gentleman in that I take those issues seriously, I shall be more succinct.
Basically, there are two issues, the first of which is the composition of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman described it as appalling. I hope that he and other hon. Members who share his view will be prepared to vote against the composition.
At a practical level, if so many members of the Committee on both sides of the House have Front-Bench responsibilities, how will they be able to give the amount of time that will clearly be necessary to consider what is a complicated Bill, as I think all of us would confirm, within the time frame that the House has agreed? Even if the composition of the Committee was logical and appropriate before we agreed the programme motion, it certainly is not now that we have done so. Clearly, the commitments on both sides will be such that it will be


very difficult to complete the Committee's work within the time frame now agreed by the House. As the House has already been reminded, on the previous occasion, eight out of the 11 Committee members were Back Benchers with fewer responsibilities for other business in the House, so they could give the amount of time that was clearly necessary.
First and foremost, my colleagues and I are extremely unhappy about the fact that the Committee has been constituted almost entirely by trusties, to use the expression of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Before he seeks to intervene, if it is any consolation to him, I already have the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is the Liberal Democrat trustie, that if the other trusties are all removed, I shall be happy as Chief Whip to replace him with someone from our Back Benches. I hope that that will console the right hon. Gentleman.
The second issue is, of course, the one to which the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred so eloquently. It is critical that the Committee should have access to other information and sources of advice and expertise outwith the Ministry of Defence. That is surely the most important point about our Select Committee procedures and the composition of such Committees. They should not simply be informed by the Executive. They are not Government informed; they have other sources of information.
It is extremely important to ensure that the amendment is not only passed, but implemented. It will not be good enough for someone to say, halfway through the process, that there is no time to get the necessary expertise or to find the required advisers. It is essential that the Select Committee procedure and principles are observed, even with this specially constituted Committee.
That is all I need to say on the amendment, but I want to say something about how Conservative Members have treated the issue. We all enjoy the speeches of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). My mind is still boggling at the word picture that he painted of a cosy travelling circus, consensually vibrating with excitement. That is not a serious approach. I trust that if the Committee's composition is reviewed, even at this late hour, he will not serve on it so that he cannot be embarrassed by any travelling circus.
Seriously, it is extraordinary that those on the Conservative Front Bench cannot even discipline their own Back Benchers in a debate that is basically about military discipline. There is a complete division of opinion about whether the Select Committee will be a useful adjunct and a useful way to consider the business of the House. I am concerned about the reputation of the House. I believe that Select Committees are an extremely effective tool to ensure that the Executive's legislation and executive actions receive proper scrutiny. I believe that Select Committees have done useful work in the past, but they have done their most useful work when they have been truly representative of the whole House, not just of those on the Front Benches.

Mr. Gummer: I deeply disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I believe strongly in Select Committees and

that they should be able to travel when necessary. I do not like the way in which we talk as though it were unimportant to discover what is happening in the Army and in the armed forces generally. That is a proper activity, and to seek to limit it is not a suitable activity for the House, which should extend its power over the Executive. It can do so only by getting information itself.
In no sense do I seek to limit what the Select Committee does; nor do I wish to complain about the expense to which it puts the taxpayer, especially as its Chairman has said how much he has limited that expense. I do not want this debate to become an argument about cheeseparing in the proper performance of parliamentary activity. This debate ought to be about the way in which the Government are stopping the proper performance of parliamentary activity. We do ourselves a disservice if we suggest that, somehow or other, people will join this Select Committee or any other Select Committee merely for the purpose of junketing. Only the Murdoch newspapers are served by such comments.

Mr. Blunt: I want to reinforce my right hon. Friend's point. The subject of the Bill is the operation of discipline in the armed forces in times of both peace and war. It is an extremely important matter that the members of the Committee, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), have no military experience at all. My hon. Friend has gained experience through his membership of the Select Committee on Defence. The Committee's members should be able to go to an operational theatre to see how the Bill is meant to work in practice in the most extreme conditions that can be found today.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that he asks for a proper investigation and wishes the Committee to do such travel as is necessary for it to carry out its duties. That is the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) presented.
I have gone to the trouble of looking up the interests of the members of the Committee who have been placed on it by the Whips. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) lists industrial relations, pensions and housing as his special interests. The Minister for the Armed Forces lists as his special interests energy, industry, electronics, the motor industry, the construction industry, Australia, Israel and the United States. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) lists as her interests economic policy, industry, education, housing, Europe, Africa and the United States. That is about half the world. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) says that his special interests are regional policy, education and training.

Mr. Keetch: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I was about to come to the hon. Gentleman.
Apart from one Minister and the representatives of the Opposition, it is difficult to discover anyone on the Committee who has previously evinced any interest in this serious subject. I do not make merely a party political point, but a point about the House of Commons. Such a Committee has never happened before. We can examine the lists of members of previous Select Committees


relating to such Bills and we will discover that they were almost entirely filled with people who had a long-standing interest in the subject and whose contribution could be described as specialist.
Tonight, we are arguing about a totally different kind of Committee. I hope that the House will take seriously the speech of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Not realising that I would take part in the debate, I had occasion earlier to compliment him on his performance on television when he answered a tricky question about which he had received no prior knowledge. He answered it in a way that was perfectly proper and that enabled someone like myself from a different political party to know what was a reasonable answer to a particularly difficult issue with which the Ministry of Defence was trying to grapple. I refer to the uranium in some of the armaments used in Britain and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman gave every kind of due to the Ministry of Defence. He sought to make it as easy as possible for the Ministry to handle a difficult problem, but he also reserved the right and duty of the House and its Members to insist on a proper, accurate and detailed explanation. He made the balanced statement that one would have expected from a Select Committee Chairman of whatever party and in whatever circumstances.
When that individual comes to the House and says that he finds the membership of a Committee appalling, he does not deserve to have his Whip standing staring at him for 20 minutes, trying to harass and intimidate him. Happily, unlike myself, the right hon. Gentleman is significantly larger than his Whip, and if there is any intimidation I am perfectly sure that he will be able to ensure that it is on his part. However, that was shocking behaviour. I do not want Opposition Members to say so; Government Members should be saying that it was shocking. It is not right that Parliament should be treated as if it were merely a poodle of the governing party, whichever that may be.
Tonight, we are discussing something fundamentally unacceptable, and I ask the Minister, whom I believe to be a decent man, to notice that in this debate and the previous one, serious and sensible members of his party have stood up and complained about the way in which Parliament has been treated. When I look back over my 25 years in the House, I do not remember an occasion on which, in two successive debates, such complaints were made on either side of the House by Members of their standing and loyalty. This ought to be an occasion for the Government to wonder whether they have made a mistake.
Earlier, of course, there was a certain amount of good-natured humour, which is not unreasonable in the House, and certainly not at such a time. However, this debate is not one of good-natured humour; it is about one of the crucial elements in our democracy. We are discussing the Armed Forces Bill, and Parliament was originally set up to deal with exactly such issues, and not those matters that the members of the Committee have said are their closest interests. Those matters are important, but they are subsequent to Parliament's fundamental purpose, which was to deal with the nation's need to have armed forces, to make sure that they were at the service of the nation and not merely the Crown, and to ensure that the nation was properly defended.
We are not talking about an unimportant matter or one that should be prejudged on the basis of the way in which the Government have stuffed the Committee and appear already to have decided who shall chair it. Those are not suitable measures for a Government who claim that they want to represent all the people. This is not a light matter.
I promised to say something about the Liberal Democrat member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I do not agree with him. He has a number of views that I find unacceptable, but no one can claim that he does not follow these matters with care and assiduity. No one can claim that he should not be a member of such a Committee. It would not be in keeping with the tenor of what I have to say to comment on Conservative Members, but I must tell the Minister that he cannot point to more than one Labour Member who can claim any previous interest in the matter. That must be embarrassing for him in trying to ensure that the Committee is a proper vehicle for the House to carry through its prime purpose, which is to keep the Executive properly in bounds.

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend, who has done his research on various members of the Committee, referred to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). Did my right hon. Friend carry out research similar to that which I undertook and discover that the hon. Gentleman is eminently qualified—more so than Conservative Members—because listed among his interests in the paperwork that I have is building model warships?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that it is necessary to be able to build model warships to be a member of the Committee, but that hobby represents an interest in the subject greater than that of any Back-Bench Labour member of that Committee, save one. Is not it scandalous that listing building model warships among their interests would have shown those members of the Committee, save one, to be much more suitable members? That is the level at which the matter is pitched.
I would not have been the one to say how that state of affairs arose, but the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, who chairs the Defence Committee, told us that the Select Committee is abominable because its membership was decided by the Whips—perhaps by the very Whip who tried, by his presence, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from continuing his speech, or perhaps by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), the Whip who, until a moment ago, was sitting on the Treasury Bench, laughing. I have always thought that that particular subfusc giggle betrays embarrassment and knowing that the point being made is right as well as the fact that the person giggling does not have an answer. That Whip has left the Chamber, but he will play a part in the Committee—not that the matter is an interest of his.
This is a serious matter, but, at almost 1.15 am, I see no one who is likely to report how serious it is. No newspaper or television service and no one from radio will report that, for the first time in history, the House will allow the Armed Forces Bill to be considered by a Committee with a majority of members who have been chosen because they know nothing about the subject. What is more, until the right hon. Member for Walsall, South tabled his manuscript amendment, those members were not to be helped by someone who might know something about the subject.
The Government hoped to establish a complacent, ignorant Committee majority who would have no help in asking questions of the Ministry of Defence, which we all know to be a Ministry adept at meeting questions with answers more opaque than translucent. May I point to an example? For some months, I have been trying to discover on what basis the United Kingdom supported the American bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan. That is a matter of great importance to me because I believe it to have been an unprovoked and unacceptable invasion of other nations' airspace and quite wrong. I have received no answer from the Ministry of Defence or the Prime Minister. I am told that it is a matter of—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the motion that is being debated.

Mr. Gummer: I shall be careful to stray back, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the long discussions that the Committee will have in dealing with its wide remit, I hope that it will discover, at least for me, why the Government can say that that is a matter of national security—the bombing by the Americans of the Sudan is a matter of British national security—and that they therefore need not give me an answer.
Will the Government give an answer to the Select Committee? No, because the Committee is not capable of insisting that it gets the answer, for it is composed of people who have taken no interest in the matter up to now, and until the right hon. Member for Walsall, South insisted on it would not even have had someone to guide them.
I am not speaking on the subject because I am an expert on the armed forces, and it would be wrong for me to do so if I were. I am speaking on the subject because I care about the House of Commons and whether we will regain for ourselves the job that we were sent here to do. I could speak about the environment, about which I do know something, or about agriculture, about which I care a great deal, but neither of those were the original reasons for the existence of the House. The House was established to ensure proper control of the Executive on defence. That is what we were created for, historically, and in that sense the right hon. Gentleman has a role of considerable importance.
I shall deal finally with that role, because it relates to the so-called Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that no other country in the European Union would accept the subsidiary role that his Committee has had forced upon it by our current system. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has just arrived, no doubt again from Geneva, which is not in a member state of the European Union. He should take the matter seriously if he is a democrat and if he is interested in the European Union, as I believe him to be.
I shall say something that probably will not be popular with my colleagues, but I want to say it because it is true. The European Union member states were often criticised in the past by Conservative Members—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the terms of the motion that we are discussing. Will he please confine his remarks to that?

Mr. Gummer: Of course I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the issue concerns a Select Committee that we are setting up. It is perfectly proper for me to refer to the fact that you rightly allowed the right hon. Member for Walsall, South to mention that his Committee did not have the same powers as comparable committees in any other country in the EU, and that that was one of the reasons why he was concerned about what the House was setting up today.
I am following the right hon. Gentleman precisely in those terms and merely saying that the reason why it did not happen in the past was because the House had those powers. We took those powers to ourselves. Now, we have neither given them to the Select Committee nor kept them for ourselves. The House as a whole neither exercises those powers, as was once true, nor has it done what our colleagues in the EU did—given those powers to a Select Committee. Oddly enough, we are in a worse position than any other member of the EU, because we have neither kept what we had nor gained what those countries have chosen to have.
Tonight, we are making that situation worse because we are allowing the Government to insist that we discuss this at 1.20 am and we are only allowed a vote this evening because of the beneficial accident of the manuscript amendment of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South. In addition, we seem to be endorsing a proposal which will not be satisfactory when it comes to the control of the Executive because the people whom we are choosing are none of them capable, by their past experience or published interests, to carry through the kind of investigation which would be proper.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it showed a great deal of contempt for the Select Committee and the Chairman that the Minister's only response to a long speech during a debate on an important constitutional issue was to rebuke the Select Committee Chairman for speaking so late at night and keeping his colleagues up?

Mr. Gummer: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not want me to follow my hon. Friend too far down that line, but I was surprised at that. I can only assume that it was because the Minister did not list defence among his interests. Had we been talking about the motor industry, he might have been prepared for us to go on all night.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend should probably wind up his remarks fairly quickly because the Government Deputy Chief Whip is haranguing the Chair, probably for a closure motion on the debate.

Mr. Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The accusation has been made that you have been harangued. Can you confirm whether that is the case?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but it is entirely up to me to decide whether I have been harangued. At the moment I do not think that that is happening.

Mr. Gummer: It is no criticism of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to suggest that someone might have harangued


you. That would be so only if you took any notice of it, and no one would accuse you of that. The issue before us is too serious for me to wind up immediately.
The Select Committee will not be able to do its job properly because of its membership. It will also not be able to do its job properly because of those who are not among its members. I suppose that I was among those being accused of a certain light-heartedness, but my point was a serious one.
One of the important aspects of a Select Committee is that it has on it a number of people who are mavericks, who do not think in terms of the established position of the Government or the Opposition but look at things in a slightly different way. I often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but he is an important Member of the House because he thinks differently from others and puts his point. The hon. Member for Rotherham, whom I tease from time to time about his connections with the Swiss republic, is in many ways a maverick himself, and the House would be the poorer without him.
I am a generous man and it is important to have a wide range of people in the House, but we also need such people on Select Committees. I suspect, although the right hon. Member for Walsall, South did not mention it, that one of the things that he does not like about the Select Committee is that no one from either side on it is likely to give anybody a run for their money. The thing about consensus, which is what the Select Committee should seek, is that it should not be consensus between the experts who have similar ways of looking at things—it should be able to bring into the structure people who will ask tough and difficult questions. That is another reason why we will not get the answer that I would like from the Committee.
There is a further reason, which is just as important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was a little unfair in talking about the quorum of three in the Committee, as previous Bill Committees have had a similar quorum. Perhaps it would have been better if my right hon. Friend had begun by saying that he would not have minded a quorum of three if other circumstances were as they previously had been. The problem with the quorum is that those outside might say that it is odd, as it could be filled just with Opposition Front-Benchers, let alone Government Front-Benchers. What an odd quorum, if it could be filled by Ministers and Whips alone. Because the Government do not care about that, the issue is serious. I want to end with that—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Hear, hear.

Mr. Gummer: It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but if he had been here earlier he would have heard why many Members on both sides of the House thought the issue to be more serious than is suggested by a sedentary comment from a junior Minister in a different Department.
I am glad that the Deputy Chief Whip is here because he will be able to carry these comments back—not that he will, but I hope that he will—which is important for the health of the Government. They have produced a proposal which turns out to be flawed and, remarkably, does not

even satisfy the Chairman of the Defence Committee. The Government have to wait for him to table a manuscript amendment before they recognise that they have made a mistake. They have not talked to him properly and, surely, they were wrong in that. They do not have the experience or knowledge to know that it was necessary to do that in the first place. That was wrong. They have also allowed themselves a system, programme and timetable which make it impossible for the Government to listen to the House of Commons.
I come back to the serious issue that, today, we are supposed to have a Second Reading, then a 45-minute discussion of a guillotine, and then a discussion of the nature of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill. We are supposed to do all those things, but the Government have not given themselves time to listen to what the House of Commons says in the meantime. It is all right for the Executive, who are all happy, as they know that they have won the day—[Interruption.] However, it is the civil servants who have won the day. This is about the Ministry of Defence saying, as it has always said, to all other members of the Government, "Is it not better to have a nice, tidy, clean, clear system, instead of those inconvenient people called Members of Parliament to whom you have to go and listen?"

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not think that my right hon. Friend heard the sedentary intervention of the Minister, who said, with the arrogance that characterises the Government, "And we will carry the day every day for the rest of this Parliament".

Mr. Gummer: Of course, the Minister is right, but he is wrong in one respect, as a majority of 170 ought to make someone more reticent, rather than triumphalist. Even if that were true of other Governments, the Minister should remind himself that he ought to do better than them. He should not say that they were wrong, but he was merely following them. Do not tell me that; it is the answer of the coward through the ages: one does what is wrong because someone else has done it.
The Under-Secretary should be ashamed of himself. Even more important, he should bear it in mind that no previous Government have treated an Armed Forces Bill in such a manner. The Under-Secretary should not tell us about the power of a majority because no previous Government have behaved in such a way. He cannot sit, self-satisfied—

Dr. Moonie: Yes he can.

Mr. Gummer: He can, but he would be wrong to do so, and I believe that he wants to be right. He is factually wrong; he claims that others have done what only he has had the arrogance to do. That is sad because the Under-Secretary is better than that. He should not have made such a comment to the House, which is treating the matter seriously.
The Government are wrong for a third reason: they thought that the House would allow them to get away with their behaviour. In practical terms, they can get away with anything. However, the Government and the Under-Secretary should remember that they have been warned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and by the right hon. Member for


Walsall, South, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. If the Under-Secretary had seen some of the faces behind him earlier, when more of the experts were present, he would have realised that some other Labour Members believed that he was wrong. When the country knows what has happened, it will feel that he is wrong. The Government have damaged democracy tonight. They have been overweening in the use of their majority; they have removed from Parliament a duty that it has always had. In doing all that, they have done a grave disservice to Britain.

Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are about to attempt to move a closure motion. When you consider whether to accept it, I hope that you will bear in mind that I have been trying to catch your eye as a former service man and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is hardly a point of order. Calling hon. Members to speak is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.

Dr. Moonie: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 72.

Division No. 41]
[1.33 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Darvill, Keith


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Austin, John
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bailey, Adrian



Barnes, Harry
Dawson, Hilton


Battle, John
Dobbin, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Beard, Nigel
Donohoe, Brian H


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Doran, Frank


Berry, Roger
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Caroline


Browne, Desmond
Follett, Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Casale, Roger
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grogan, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cousins, Jim
Hendrick, Mark


Cranston, Ross
Hepburn, Stephen


Crausby, David
Heppell, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hesford, Stephen





Hill, Keith
Pond, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Humble, Mrs Joan
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Prosser, Gwyn


Jamieson, David
Purchase, Ken


Jenkins, Brian
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)



Joyce, Eric
Rooney, Terry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roy, Frank


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruane, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sarwar, Mohammad


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Savidge, Malcolm


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Laxton, Bob
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Leslie, Christopher
Skinner, Dennis


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Linton, Martin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McAvov,Thomas
Spellar, John


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stevenson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Stoate, Dr Howard


McDonnell, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McFall, John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


McNutty, Tony
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


MacShane, Denis
Temple-Morris, Peter


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mallaber, Judy
Tippinq, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Todd, Mark


Martlew, Eric
Touhig, Don


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Miller, Andrew
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mitchell, Austin
Tynan, Bill


Moffatt, Laura
Vis, Dr Rudi


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Watts, David


Mountford, Kali
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Mudie, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Wood, Mike


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Worthington, Tony


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wray, James


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L
Mr. Mike Hall and


Pollard, Kerry
Mrs. Anne McGuire.


NOES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bercow, John
Fraser, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gibb, Nick


Brady, Graham
Green, Damian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grieve, Dominic


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hammond, Philip


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hawkins, Nick


Burnett, John
Hayes, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heald, Oliver



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clappison, James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Keetch, Paul


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lansley, Andrew






Leigh, Edward
Sanders, Adrian


Letwin, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lidington, David
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Syms, Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell,Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tyler Paul


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)




Walter, Robert


Öpik, Lembit
Waterson, Nigel


Pickles, Eric
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)



Ruffley, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. John Randall and


St Aubyn, Nick
Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment made:—
The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 9.

Division No. 42]
[1.47 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dawson, Hilton


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dobbin, Jim


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Austin, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Bailey, Adrian
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Efford, Clive


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ennis, Jeff


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Fisher, Mark


Blackman, Liz
Flint, Caroline


Blears, Ms Hazel
Follett, Barbara


Blunt, Crispin
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Browne, Desmond
Goggins, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burnett, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Casale, Roger
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hendrick, Mark


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hill, Keith


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Joyce, Eric





Keeble, Ms Sally
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)



Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooney, Terry


Keetch, Paul
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roy, Frank


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ruane, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Laxton, Bob
Sanders, Adrian


Leslie, Christopher
Sarwar, Mohammad


Levitt, Tom
Savidge, Malcolm


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Sawford, Phil


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Linton, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McNamara, Kevin
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNulty, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Mallaber, Judy
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Swayne, Desmond


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun



Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moffatt, Laura
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Öpik, Lembit
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tyler, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tynan, Bill


Perham, Ms Linda
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pickthall, Colin
Watts, David


Pike, Peter L
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pollard, Kerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Pond, Chris
Wood, Mike


Pope, Greg
Worthington, Tony


Pound, Stephen
Wray, James


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Purchase, Ken
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Rapson, Syd
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Baldry, Tony
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter



Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Wilshire and


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Christopher Chope.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put:—
The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 20.

Division No. 43]
[1.59 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Austin, John
Betts, Clive


Bailey, Adrian
Blackman, Liz


Barnes, Harry
Blears, Ms Hazel


Battle, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Bayley, Hugh
Brinton, Mrs Helen






Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hendrick, Mark


Browne, Desmond
Hepburn, Stephen


Burgon, Colin
Heppell, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hill, Keith


Casale, Roger
Hoey, Kate


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Chaytor, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Jenkins, Brian


Coaker, Vernon
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cohen, Harry
Joyce, Eric


Colman, Tony
Keeble, Ms Sally


Connarty, Michael
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cranston, Ross
Kilfoyle, Peter


Crausby, David
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dalyell, Tam
Laxton, Bob


Darvill, Keith
Leslie, Christopher


Davidson, Ian
Levitt, Tom


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Linton, Martin


Dawson, Hilton
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobbin, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Macdonald, Calum


Donohoe, Brian H
McDonnell, John


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Drew, David
McNulty, Tony


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McWilliam, John


Efford, Clive
Mallaber, Judy


Ennis, Jeff
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Etherington, Bill
Martlew, Eric


Fisher, Mark
Meale, Alan


Flint, Caroline
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Follett, Barbara
Miller, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
Mitchell, Austin


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Moffatt, Laura


Gerrard, Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Morley, Elliot


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mountford, Kali


Goggins, Paul
Mudie, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Grogan, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pickthall, Colin


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Pike, Peter L


Hanson, David
Pollard, Kerry


Healey, John
Pond, Chris





Pope, Greg
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Sir Raymond



Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Purchase, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Rooney, Terry
Touhig, Don


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Tynan, Bill


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Wareing, Robert N


Sawford, Phil
Watts, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wray, James


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevenson, George
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Blunt, Crispin
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chope, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Keetch, Paul
Mr. David Wilshire and


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That Rachel Squire, Mr. John Spellar, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Dave Watts, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Randall and Mr. Paul Keetch be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.

Orders of the Day — Electoral Commission

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the Minister, I remind the House that, as the occupant of the Chair said last night, this motion is narrow. It deals with whether those listed in it will be appropriate electoral commissioners. The debate does not provide an opportunity to reopen the issues decided when Parliament enacted the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 a few weeks ago.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as Electoral Commissioners:

(1) Pamela Joan Gordon for the period of four years;
(2) Sir Neil William David McIntosh KBE for the period of four years;
(3) Johnathon Glyn Mathias for the period of five years;
(4) Sukhminder Karamjit Singh CBE for the period of five years;
(5) James Samuel Younger for the period of six years; and
(6) Graham John Zellick for the period of five years;

and that Her Majesty will appoint James Samuel Younger to be the chairman of the Electoral Commission for the period of six years.
As we have been around this course once already, I do not propose to say much now, to allow other hon. Members the opportunity to speak. As I said yesterday, we believe that the six individuals who have been nominated have the appropriate mix of skills and experience necessary to establish the Electoral Commission as an effective independent regulator of the controls on party funding, and as a force for the modernisation of our electoral law and practices—and, boy, do we need modernisation.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: As the House would expect, we have undertaken all the necessary statutory procedures, including consulting the leaders of those parties with two or more sitting Members of Parliament. I think that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene.

Mr. Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his courtesy at this hour of the night. I wished to ask whether he has had a chance during the past 25 hours to reflect on last night's proceedings. He may recall that I asked him about the impartiality of the two nominees who have spent a large part of their careers in the BBC if a referendum on the euro were to take place. Has he had a chance to consider that point?

Mr. O'Brien: Of course I consider any comment that the hon. Gentleman makes with a great deal of care. However, I do not have the fears that he seems to have about those who work for the BBC. I am sure that, from time to time, all hon. Members have reason to feel unhappy about the way in which something may have been reported; but, by and large, we can rely on the BBC to be as impartial as it should be. So I have no problem

with the fact that some of those who have applied for the position of electoral commissioner have worked for the BBC.
Perhaps it is not that surprising that people who are interested in politics, but not in being politicians, might find their way into journalism and reporting in an organisation that seeks to be impartial, such as the BBC. I am not sure that we need have any great fear, such as the hon. Gentleman's, but he is entitled to express his views during the debate, and I am sure that he will do so. I shall, of course, seek to respond to the issues raised in the debate in due course; but for the time being, I commend the six individuals named in the motion.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I am slightly surprised that the Minister thinks it appropriate to be so brief in his opening remarks. Although he says that he intends to respond to the issues raised in the debate, he mentions the fact that the House has been around this course before. However, in the latest part of the disastrous saga that has comprised the history of the election commissioners, the Government lost their business entirely last night because they could not persuade more than 17 of their colleagues and two Liberal Democrats to support them.
Given that the business collapsed last night, we might have thought that the Minister would feel it appropriate to go into slightly more detail about the series of disasters that has characterised the matter. However, it does not matter that the Minister has not done so, because we are starting again from scratch. This is a fresh debate on a completely new motion on today's Order Paper. It is as though last night's debate never happened, so it is important to put on record the history of the Government's disastrous mistakes. After I made my points yesterday, other points were raised by hon. Members. My right hon. and hon. Friends who did not have the opportunity to speak or who were able to speak only briefly may have an opportunity to make some fresh points in tonight's debate.
Let us begin by considering the way in which the Minister explained how the procedure first started. He told us that the Home Office placed an advertisement inviting applicants to fill the position of electoral commissioner and that it had received 223 applications by the closing date. We do not know who all those 223 were.

Mr. Eric Forth: They were all from the BBC.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend suggests that they may have all been from the BBC, but we know that at least four of them were not. We gathered from the Minister that the number of applicants was subsequently—whittled down—his unusual choice of phrase—to a shortlist of 16, who were then invited for interview by a selection panel chaired by Sir David Omand, the permanent secretary at the Home Office. The other members of the panel were Elizabeth Filkin, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; Sylvia Denman, an academic lawyer specialising in equal opportunity issues; and Nigel Varney, the head of the Home Office party funding unit.
At that stage, things began to go wrong. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, for beginning the process of unravelling exactly what went wrong.

Mr. David Maclean: My hon. Friend has skipped too quickly over the process by which the list was whittled down to a shortlist of 16 for interview. Will he press the Minister on whether the permanent secretary at the Home Office was involved in that process and on what discussions he may have had with the Home Secretary and Ministers about producing a shortlist for interview?

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. In the light of the questions that have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Minister might feel that it would be helpful to the House to have all that information placed in the Library and sent to all the Members who have taken part in the debates on the issue. It would be important for the House to have access to that information, particularly when we come at a later stage to the question of the Speaker's Committee. It will be the only way in which the House has scrutiny over those who will be electoral commissioners, if this Address is presented at the conclusion of our proceedings and if the six names become the electoral commissioners. We shall look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is prepared to provide the important information that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) seeks.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am ungracious, but I think that I am right in saying that, for some very peculiar reason, this matter cannot be resolved today. It is subject to one of the absurd deferred Divisions that take place on Wednesday. Although the clock suggests that that is today, in parliamentary terms it will be tomorrow. Although the debate is taking place now, a completely different group of people will troop through the Lobbies tomorrow and vote on the matter even though they have not taken part in the debate, because they have almost certainly all gone home.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is right. He knows that I am as bitter an opponent of these so-called modernisation measures as he is. However, I accept that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, want me to concentrate on the motion.
I turn now to the saga of how things began to unravel for the Government, although the Minister might prefer to gloss over that. On 30 November last year, even before my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton became involved, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) tabled a question asking when the commissioners were to be appointed following the enactment of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
One might have thought that when the shadow Home Secretary asked about Government legislation which only a few days before had become an Act, she would receive a full and proper answer. One might particularly have

expected that answer to mention that the Home Office was about to make a formal announcement to the media. However, the only reply that my right hon. Friend received came on 13 December. It said:
We intend to table a motion for an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, as required by section 3(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, soon.—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 181W.]
So far, so good, It was therefore with considerable surprise that we discovered that the very morning after that answer was given to my right hon. Friend, the Home Office issued a press release announcing the names of the members of the Electoral Commission which the Government were putting forward. No reference had been made to an imminent press release in the written answer given to my right hon. Friend only the day before, yet that press release listed the names on the Order Paper that the Government are now proposing and said that those people had been recommended for appointment. Apparently, there was no question then of the matter coming before the House.
We are now entirely agreed that this is a matter for the House, but it rapidly became clear that the Home Office had more than somewhat jumped the gun. That became clear so quickly because of the usual perception shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton in raising the matter at business questions on 14 December. She asked the Leader of the House:
Why will the House have to wait until mid-January before the electoral commissioners are appointed, as the Home Office press release states? Surely we could debate that in the coming week and have them in place for the new year—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although it is true that we are starting afresh tonight, the hon. Gentleman is giving the House interesting background information, and we are here to discuss the suitability of these people to be commissioners—and that is all.

Mr. Hawkins: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to set out a little of the background to show how the official Opposition were able to ensure that this debate is taking place at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the suitability of the persons named to be commissioners.

Mr. Hawkins: I shall seek to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand that the official Opposition's concern about how this motion comes to be before the House is linked to the suitability of the persons named. Given the Government's problems on the matter, it is almost impossible to disentangle those two issues.
No less a person than the Home Secretary had to write a grovelling apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. He had also to write to his Chief Whip and to Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to disentangle the two issues about which he is talking, but he must try a little harder; otherwise, he will have to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Hawkins: I shall certainly do my level best, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Under questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton about the particular issue that we are debating tonight and the Home Office press release announcing the names of the commissioners, the Leader of the House said:
As for the Home Office press release, I am afraid that I am not familiar with precisely what was said or why … However, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill has been extensively discussed … I understand that the House is interested in who the commissioners may be, but I am not aware of a suggestion that we should debate those appointments. Indeed, successive Governments have not thought that there should be accountability, other than through Ministers, for appointments that are made through the proper public appointment process.—[Official Report. 14 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 804–05.]
The Leader of the House appeared to suggest to my hon. Friend that the matter that we are debating—the suitability or otherwise of particular names of particular commissioners—should not be debated at all. However, the Home Secretary realised that the Government had promised in the 2000 Act that the matter would have to be debated properly and that a motion that an Address including the names of commissioners be presented to Her Majesty would have to be tabled. That caused the apologies, the letters and, in due course, the debate.
There is no doubt that matters have gone badly awry. The 2000 Act includes provision to set up the Speaker's Committee to oversee the work of the Electoral Commission, and the establishment of that Committee has to be discussed. Can the Minister tell us when it will be established? It will be part of the House's ongoing responsibility to scrutinise not only the current electoral commissioners, but any future commissioners who may be appointed under the legislation. The House needs to know what the Government have in mind on the timing of the appointments of the no fewer than five Members of the House—not including Ministers—who will be on the Speaker's Committee to carry out that ongoing scrutiny. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.
Last night, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised a number of substantial concerns about the particular people suggested by the Government. Should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will have the opportunity to outline those concerns.
I should make it clear that the official Opposition were consulted quite properly about the names, as provided for under the 2000 Act, and we are not suggesting from the Front Bench that there is anything wrong with those particular individuals. However, it is undoubtedly right that, after a lot of work by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and after the Government had to admit that their own legislation requires the debate, every Member of the House should have the opportunity to scrutinise the individual names.
We hope that the Electoral Commission and the commissioners will do their work thoroughly and properly, but it is essential—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and all other Members of the House will agree—that appointments should always be subject to the overall jurisdiction of the House, no matter who becomes a commissioner in future. Unless the House ultimately controls the destiny of those matters, we will have

subcontracted the issue relating to elections in a way that I, and no doubt my right hon. and hon. Friends, would find deeply disturbing.
Having made those points, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have the opportunity to explore the issues that are of interest to them. I also hope that we will hear a great deal more from the Minister about how the House will be able to continue its scrutiny not only of the current commissioners, but of any future commissioners, through the Speaker's Committee.

Mr. David Maclean: The question before us, which is relatively narrow, is simply whether Sam, Pam, Neil, Glyn, Karamjit and Graham are the right people to be put on the commission to carry out the tasks with which they have been entrusted.
In the press release issued by the Minister explaining that the members of the commission would be Sam Younger, Pamela Gordon, Sir Neil McIntosh, Glyn Mathias, Karamjit Singh and Professor Graham Zellick, he describes briefly the tasks that those six people will be expected to perform. Their overriding task, which is listed first in the press statement, is to scrutinise electoral issues such as party funding and referendums, and ensure the delivery of the Neill principles of integrity and openness. They will also provide independent oversight of the new funding framework for UK political parties.
Of course, those six people—Sam Younger, Pamela Gordon, Sir Neil McIntosh, Glyn Mathias, Karamjit Singh and Professor Graham Zellick—will also monitor the political parties compliance with the controls on their income and expenditure. In between times, they will keep under review the law and practice in relation to elections and referendums, although none of them seems to be legally qualified, except Professor Graham Zellick, who is a vice-chancellor of a university and may have a legal qualification. Members of the commission will promote awareness of electoral systems, take over responsibility for the review of parliamentary and local government boundaries, and comment on the intelligibility of referendum questions. That is a tremendously wide-ranging groups of important activities for those six people. The question is whether they are qualified to do the job and why the Government picked them, rather than others. We are told by the Minister that Ministers had no involvement at all in the selection process.
These matters need to be probed more closely. Of course, Ministers were not on the selection panel of the final four, but we need a straight answer from the Minister to the question whether, at any time, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir David Omand, had any discussions with the Home Secretary or the Minister about the selection list, the whittling down of the list to the 16 people who would come in for interview, and any opinions after those people were interviewed. I imagine that the permanent secretary would not have had discussions with the Secretary of State following the oral interviews, and that the decision had presumably been made by the board. The four interviewers would have made the final decision on the selection of six people out of 16.
Unless systems have changed radically, I suspect that at some time the permanent secretary may have had a discussion with the Home Secretary about the criteria for


selection, and the qualities that the Home Secretary might have in mind in drawing up a final shortlist of 16. The Minister was careful in his choice of words. He said that Ministers were not involved in the final selection process. That may be absolutely correct. Of course, I believe what he says, but were Ministers involved at any stage in the selection process?
Apart from being consulted about the original advertisement in The Guardian—the Home Office still usually uses that newspaper to advertise such posts—and the criteria, were Ministers consulted at all by civil servants, particularly by the permanent secretary, on any of the names to be included in the list at any stage? Let us consider the qualities of the people required to do the job. Some people are required to promote public awareness of electoral systems.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. With his unique knowledge of the background to the mechanisms which may be used, does he agree that there is at least a prima facie case for presuming that Ministers would have laid down criteria such as gender, ethnicity and regionality in the selection process in order to arrive at the sort of outcome that Ministers would have wanted? Will my right hon. Friend speculate on the extent to which that might or might not conflict with qualifications and competence?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. I suspect that, initially. Ministers would have laid down certain criteria on the desired mix, including ethnicity. They failed quite badly on the sexual mix. I can see only one woman on the list, which is a critical failing of Home Office Ministers in this Government. Such criteria would help to stack the list. But I am concerned about what particular discussions Ministers may have had with the permanent secretary.
As I was saying, Sam, Pam, Neil, Glyn, Karamjit and Graham have as one of their prime tasks responsibility for promoting public awareness of electoral systems. That may be why, with the important responsibility of promoting public awareness and dealing with the media, two members of the commission are from the BBC. In other words, one third of them are from the BBC. But were these the best people to take from the BBC? One has heard of Glyn Mathias and has seen him on the television occasionally. I do not know of Sam Younger. But the Government could have picked someone more important or apparently more powerful. They could have recruited Greg Dyke himself to serve on the commission rather than Mr. Sam Younger.

Mr. Forth: No.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend pre-empts me. Of course the Government could not have picked Mr. Greg Dyke for the task because he handed over cheques for £25,000 and £10,000 to the Government and was then made a director of the BBC, and that disqualifies him from replacing Mr. Sam Younger as one of the media people on the commission. But there are others who are equally qualified and have experience of the media. Melvyn Bragg in my constituency would have been an excellent choice, but he, too, is excluded because he

donated a mere £7,500 and then got his peerage. He would not be eligible to serve on this body until 2008, on the expiry of the 10-year bar. There are others who may be as good as Glyn Mathias. In the film world, there is David Puttnam, for example. He is qualified.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we go much further down this road, I remind hon. Members that we are not here tonight to debate the suitability or otherwise of people not mentioned in the motion. We are here specifically to deal with the people mentioned on the Order Paper.

Mr. Maclean: I shall not go further down the road of mentioning characters from the media, but shall try to stick closely to the narrow debate on the suitability of Sam Younger, Pamela Gordon, Neil McIntosh—for the avoidance of any doubt, that is Sir Neil McIntosh, not Sir Cameron Mackintosh, of Labour funding fame, who gave the Labour party £50,000 and then got his knighthood. The people on today's Order Paper have been appointed for various periods of four, five and six years. How can the House judge whether those six people best fit the criteria in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and those set out by the Minister in his press release justifying their appointment?
The Minister has set out the criteria simply to justify the selection of the six people whom we have before us tonight. That was clear from his press release. I was not seeking deliberately to stray, but I had to ask whether, if the Government wanted to appoint media people, or people with experience in the media, such as Sam Younger, there were not better people.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Would not those be reasonable points for the Leader of the Opposition to place before the Government when he agreed to the list which, I suspect, was some time early in November?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman can suspect that it was any time he likes. I have no idea what was discussed between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Government party. No one else in the House does. I am not sure whether the Minister was there. I am not sure that the Minister has read any letter that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition may have sent in. However, whatever was discussed in private and whatever other parties submitted are irrelevant. There is a motion before the House, and it is for the House to decide. For all I know, my right hon. Friend may have had reservations about those people, or he may think that they are the best thing since sliced bread. The leaders of political parties may have commented to the Government selection machine in private, but I am not privy to those discussions. Even if my right hon. Friend were content with Neil McIntosh, Pamela Gordon and Sam Younger, that would not be relevant. If the Government had given us the 16 names on the shortlist, or perhaps the 50 that they had before the Home Office whittled that down to 16, and asked for our choice from those 50 or 16, I suspect that my right hon. Friend—and perhaps the Liberal Democrat party as well—may have come up with a different six names for the shortlist.
When presented with a fait accompli—a list devised by the Government and selected by an apparently foolproof or impartial procedure—on what grounds could my right hon. Friend or anyone else object to those people? I have no particular objections to them, and think that they are excellent. They are probably better than the alternatives that I was suggesting earlier. I do not want the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to lead me down a blind alley, as I want to get back to the merits of the six people before us and see whether they are the best ones for the job.
Mr. Karamjit Singh is a member of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I am not quite sure how useful that will be for the Electoral Commission, unless the Government have such a low opinion of politicians and political parties that they consider us all a bunch of criminals, in which case Mr. Singh may have particular skills. I suspect that it could be a good in-joke in the Home Office's selection committee to include someone on the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who has experience of dealing with the vilest criminals in the country, on a commission that oversees the workings of Parliament and politicians. I appreciate that joke myself.
The commission does not have any business experience. What a pity that Lord Paul was not eligible for selection. He is the Indian business man who sensibly waited for his peerage before giving the Labour party £46,000 for it, and £60,000 a year later. Someone with that business experience could have made a valuable contribution to the body, which is charged with trying to get its message across to the wider public. In that situation, someone with experience in communication other than the media would be excellent. I would have welcomed someone like Richard Faulkner, the managing director of Westminster Communications. [Interruption.] However, I will not welcome him any further.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now doing precisely what I advised him not to do.

Mr. Maclean: We must not go down that route, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have to consider whether Karamjit Singh, Glyn Mathias, Neil McIntosh, Pamela Gordon and Sam Younger are ideally placed to fulfil the tasks before them. I have no objection to them per se, but my concern is that because two of them have considerable experience of the BBC, they will bring to their job the institutional bias that all BBC staff have. As I said in the House on a previous occasion, if the Scottish judge Macpherson was to make an analysis of the BBC, he would conclude that it was institutionally Europhiliac. At present, the BBC is running a huge casmpaign to support the euro at every turn and do down our own currency. When challenged, it says that it is not biased, and that that is just reflecting normal run-of-the-mill middle-England thinking. Whenever it is challenged on bias, it genuinely does not believe that it has an in-built bias. It believes that its opinion and that of The Guardian is exactly the same as the mainstream opinion that is expressed in The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend concede that, even if it were acceptable for one person with an institutionalised BBC background to serve on the commission—at a stretch, that might just about be

acceptable—the appointment of two people from that ghastly organisation raises natural suspicions about what is going on? Does my right hon. Friend wonder how any so-called impartial selection committee could end up with two ghastly BBC people and claim that they were representative of the electorate?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a pity that someone from Granada Television or the independent sector, such as Alexander Bernstein, has not been chosen. BBC individuals have an in-built bias that they do not perceive. One does not find that bias in some other media organisations.
No one from the print media has been selected to serve on the commission. One third of the commissioners will be from the BBC; they will bring with them an unwitting, institutional bias. Many BBC individuals are thoroughly decent, and do not intend to be biased; they simply do not understand that their attitudes, life style and beliefs are not those of the majority of the British people. They take an intellectual, Guardian-reading, liberal establishment view of life. Doubtless many Labour Members aspire to such a view. Many live in places such as Hampstead and Islington nowadays. The two proposed BBC commissioners may bring that bias with them and thus unwittingly diminish the integrity and importance of the Electoral Commission.
That applies especially if one of the commissioners' tasks is to comment on a referendum question on the euro or any other subject. How can the country have faith that the commissioners of the august organisation that we are considering will be impartial when their most recent employers—the BBC—will throw the weight of a multi-billion-pound corporation into a fanatical Britain must join the euro at all costs campaign?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend amplifies some of the points that I made last night. I am most grateful to him because he has put them even more succinctly than me. Given the grave importance of the issue, and if—it is a big if, as I said last night—there is another Labour Government, the proposed commissioners, who have had the opportunity by now of reading last night's proceedings, should tell us precisely how they would approach a referendum on the euro. They should try to reassure the House that they would be impartial. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should postpone consideration or voting on the motion until we have received such reassurances?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be as willing as your predecessor in the Chair this evening to accept a manuscript amendment during our debate to require the commissioners from the BBC to declare that they would take no part in and absent themselves from deliberations in the Electoral Commission about a referendum on the euro because of the biased nature of their former employer. That former employer is doubtless paying their pensions. I assume that the two relevant commissioners have a reasonable pension fund that is connected with the BBC. In those circumstances, part of their financial interest is with their former employer and paymaster, which will be leading a fanatical join the euro at all costs campaign. The commissioners must deliver the Government's prime aim of ensuring integrity and openness.
I want to comment on a side issue, which, I hope, is relevant. The permanent secretary to the Home Office was one of the people who was involved in the selection process and in reducing the list to 16. In his former life as head of GCHQ—the Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham—he was faced with the task of rooting out spies, getting to the bottom of matters of this kind, and uncovering leaks that would have damaged the safety and security of this country. Yet that same permanent secretary, aided by his successor at GCHQ, when confronted with the evidence possessed by all the press of a leak of the Macpherson report by the Minister of State, Home Office—the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—was unable to find the culprit, even on the seventh floor of the Home Office building.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the subject of the motion.

Mr. Maclean: I accept your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I have strayed from the strait and narrow. However, it struck me as relevant that one of those who were to select others on the basis of their openness, and their ability to probe the goings-on of political parties and find out whether we were spending money properly and sticking to the law—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the suitability of those who will select; we are discussing the suitability of those whom they select.

Mr. Maclean: Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will accept that the two issues are connected. To suggest that there may he a flaw in the ability of the selectorate may be to suggest that the person selected is not ideal for the job.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. There is, in a way, a connection, but I think that what we are now debating is simply the suitability of those who have been selected, by whatever means.

Mr. Maclean: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept that they may have been selected by flawed means. In that case, I think we must put the onus on the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not put words in my mouth.

Mr. Maclean: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but let me put the onus on the Minister to reassure us—if it would be in order—that Sir David Omand, who was unable to find the leaker among his own Ministers, has, in selecting these people, been able to ensure a greater depth of scrutiny, and to assure himself that all six possess the necessary qualities. I want to know that Sir David could obtain, for instance, Sam Younger's full curriculum vitae and all the details of his background, so that he and other members of the panel could tell the Home Secretary that no impropriety was involved, and no blot on the copybook.
We have raised some important issues. As I said earlier, I have no particular worries about the individuals concerned. I think that they may be suitable for the job; I have seen no evidence suggesting that they are unsuitable. I have tried to suggest that there may have been others who wend eminently more suitable, who could have provided a better balance on a commission that will apparently consist entirely of representatives of the BBC and the media generally. Unfortunately, those better people may have been disqualified from serving on the commission for 10 years by the fact that they had not stuffed the Labour party full of money and received their peerages and knighthoods. I look forward to the renewal of the terms in four years' time, in the case of Miss Pamela Gordon and Sir Neil McIntosh—not the Cameron Mackintosh who gives money to the Labour party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman himself is bound to acknowledge that he is becoming very, very repetitive.

Mr. Maclean: That was my peroration, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was summing up in shorthand for the Minister's benefit, so that he could reply to the crucial points at the end of the debate.
I was going to say, in conclusion, that I looked forward to being back here in four years' time, when some of these people will be due to retire, although their appointments may be renewed. We shall then be able to suggest to the Minister the appointment of some of the other able people in the media and business worlds whose time bar will then have expired, because they will have paid their money and got their peerages or knighthoods and will therefore be eligible for service on the commission. They would have detailed knowledge of the workings of political parties because they knew to whom to give the money to get their gongs. Those may be the people who should serve on such a commission, in addition to the six worthies we already have.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not intend to detain the House long, but I would like to put a number of points to the Minister. First and foremost, he might be able to help me out and so, to a certain extent, curtail my remarks, if he assured me that some of the points that were raised last night will be considered. Or should we raise them again tonight to ensure that they are on the record?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members raised points yesterday that I can deal with today, it will be my intention to do so.

Mr. Howarth: That is most helpful. I am grateful to the Minister. May I just remind him of the point that I made yesterday? I should be grateful if he commented on it. It was on the question of political party membership. Clearly, none of the six individuals is currently a member of a political party. They would be debarred had they given to a political party in the past 10 years, but someone who has been a number of a political party recently—for example, last year—would not be debarred from being a commission member. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us if he knew whether they have been members of any political party. I say that not simply to try to ensure


that we Conservatives are not lumbered with an Electoral Commission that is stuffed full of closet Labour party people. I think that the public will also want to have the maximum reassurance that the Government are able to give, that those people are genuinely as independent as possible.
I see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) in his place; he is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which originally proposed the idea of an Electoral Commission. I know that he shares my view, despite the fact that he is a former journalist for The Guardian. He has been trying to go straight since he came here and repent of his many sins. No doubt he, too, would like to ensure that the appointees are genuinely independent.
Let me return briefly to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) about the BBC, Europhilia and the position that Sam Younger and Glyn Mathias may take on the issue. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said because it is important that Labour Members should understand how we feel about the matter. It is not that we believe that people in the BBC are necessarily committed to the Europhile cause and will do all that they can to promote it in contradiction of their obligation to be impartial, which the corporation's charter lays on them. It is that they come with a mindset. We can detect that from the way in which some of the presenters address the issues and question politicians from different vantage points, according to whether they are federalists, integrationists or believers in the sovereignty of these islands. Those presenters genuinely do not seem to understand how things appear to us and to the ordinary listener, who is concerned about those issues.
It is imperative that we are clear about where Glyn Mathias and Sam Younger stand on this issue. I cast no aspersions upon them. This is not a witch hunt and I am not suggesting that they are not men of integrity. We have all seen Glyn Mathias on television. I happen to have a rather higher regard for the World Service than for any other part of the BBC. I listened to Argentina's surrender during the Falklands campaign on a portable radio in Lagos, Nigeria. It was a wonderfully proud moment to hear Lillibullero coming over the airwaves and the wonderful words, "This is London", with all the authority that the BBC World Service commands. It is not—

Mr. O'Brien: It might assist the hon. Gentleman to know that during the time to which he is referring, Glyn Mathias was the controller of public affairs at ITN and was subsequently its chief political correspondent.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that clarification. As I understand it, he has since worked for the BBC.
I should like to correct something that I said last night. I said that two of the people had spent their entire careers at the BBC. The Minister has helpfully enabled me to correct that. What I said was not accurate, but those people have spent a great deal of time there. I hope that the Minister recognises my question as being valid, particularly as it is likely that we will develop more referendums in this country and that the role of the commission in policing them will be critical.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made an entertaining, if unfortunately brief, contribution to our proceedings last night, and I am sorry that he is not here now. He said that many of the names in the list sounded rather Scottish. He said that Pamela Joan Gordon sounds Scottish. I do not have my notes from last night, but I believe that she was involved with the local authority in—

Mr. Forth: Sheffield.

Mr. Howarth: Yes, but prior to that I believe that she was in Inverness. The Minister may be able to correct me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire also said that Sir Neil William David McIntosh—who as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) reminds us is not Cameron Mackintosh, who has given money to the Labour party—also sounds pretty Scottish. I believe that he was on Strathclyde council. We know that Mr. Singh does not sound Scottish. Mr. Younger sounds as if he comes from the north of the United Kingdom. Our noble Friend Lord Younger is Scottish so one can make an assumption, although perhaps incorrectly, that Sam Younger comes from Scotland.
The Government are fixated on targets, gender mix, ethnicity and all that ghastly quota stuff, and it appears from the list of names as if poor old England has not had much of a look-in. Was consideration given to ensuring a good regional mix for the whole of the United Kingdom? For example, is there anybody with any connection to Northern Ireland? I suspect there is not. Given that the legislation provides for up to nine commissioners and we are invited to approve only six, perhaps a seventh might have been appointed to represent the interests of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that more people live in London than in Scotland? Does he consider that a representation from London should be included in his possible list of commissioners? Moreover, would not the inclusion of a representative of the real world of business and commerce—of profit, employment and the payment of taxes—be of advantage to this body, as it would bring to it a proper perspective? Are not those two enormous lacunae in the list?

Mr. Maclean: Alan Sugar, for instance.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed they are, and the possibility of having nine commissioners would allow such people to be accommodated. I should be perfectly content with a London representative—as long as London were not synonymous with Islington in this case. Last night I mentioned that it was an omission that the list did not contain a person with serious business experience from the real world. Alan Sugar might have been appropriate, but his donation to the Labour party rules him out.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point about adding to the list a commissioner able to deal with Northern Ireland. However, he may not be aware that


an unresolved issue between Labour and Conservative Front-Bench Members was section 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—

Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we not debating the six names proposed in the motion, rather than other possible names?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is true that the motion is, as has already been said, very limited. We are here to discuss the members of the commission

Mr. Hawkins: I accept that stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has noted that none of the six proposed commissioners has the ability to deal with Northern Ireland. I was simply asking my hon. Friend to consider the point that section 7 of the 2000 Act, which creates the commissioners, states that no order may be made in relation to party funding in Northern Ireland until the commission—which would include the six commissioners whose names are before us—had been consulted, after which an affirmative order could be passed. That matter remains an issue between Labour and Conservative Front Benchers, and I wondered whether my hon. Friend was aware of that.

Mr. Howarth: I was not aware of that. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to its attention.

Mr. David Taylor: I am not.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is not interested in debate. He is interested in going home. I quite understand that, but these are important matters. Those of us who are of a Unionist disposition—and that includes some Labour Members, although Conservatives are more passionate about the matter—consider that it would be a mistake to overlook the Northern Ireland dimension.
The final point on which I seek the Minister's reassurance is that there was no attempt by the Labour party or the Home Office to encourage particular individuals to submit their names for the commission. I have no reason to believe that that happened, and I am aware that the Minister cannot speak for the Labour party apparatus. However, I am sure that the House would appreciate such an assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I shall be brief. I want to deal with the different lengths of the commissioners' appointments. That point was touched on last night. The Minister said that the provision was in response to a recommendation from the appointment panel that two commissioners should be appointed for four years, three for five years, and the chairman for six years. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the thinking behind that. I can understand the desirability of a rolling reappointment system. When I had the privilege of serving on the Local Government Commission and the Health and Safety Commission, there

was much advantage in the fact that not all reappointments were made at the same time. Why was an alternative not acceptable? For example, all six could have been appointed for the same period, with a view to some being reappointed for periods thereafter and some being succeeded by fresh appointments. That was the system that operated with the Local Government Commission.
It is risky for a new body with untried people to have five-year appointments. Appointments for four years have been made to Mrs. Gordon and Sir Neil McIntosh, who may turn out to be the most conscientious and effective members of the body. I fear that they are starting off at a disadvantage and will be regarded as inferior members of the commission. Had the appointments all been for four years, there could have been a reappointment process for which all six would be eligible and the House could have made a judgment on the effectiveness of the different commissioners.
I have some empathy for the position of Mrs. Gordon, because she is a member of the Local Government Commission for England. She is also the only woman member of the commission. I do not understand why she has been appointed for only four years; the Government owe the House an explanation.
I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on the need for information about whether the commissioners have been supporters of individual political parties within the last 10 years. I hope that that can be made public, in the interests of transparency. It might be unfortunate if we were to find out that all six commissioners had been active members of the Conservative party until five years ago. If that came out, it would be difficult for some people to think that those concerned were as objective as people who were members of different political parties, or of none.
We heard in the news this morning that the first of the confirmatory hearings in the United States collapsed before it even started because one of the proposed nominees to President-Elect Bush's cabinet was found to have an illegal immigrant resident in her house. Obviously, that information was not available to the President-Elect—if it had been, he would not have made such a recommendation to his cabinet. The information came out only as a result of the process of inquiry about those people.
As soon as the news about the identity of the members of the Electoral commission becomes more widely known, it is inevitable that there will be inquiries into their past political leanings. People very rarely change their views, and I can remember when Mr. Greg Dyke, who has already been mentioned in this debate, was the Labour party candidate for the Greater London council elections in Putney in 1977.

Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise the House whether Mr. Greg Dyke is one of the names on the Order Paper? I thought that we were considering only the six names on the Order Paper. Is that correct, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We are, indeed, considering the names that are listed.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is exactly what I am


discussing. I am using Mr. Dyke as an example of how leopards rarely change their spots. People who support a political party normally continue to do so.

Mr. Maclean: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a rather stupid point of order, given that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) knows that Mr. Greg Dyke is excluded from being on the commission because of the huge amount of money he gave the Labour party, after which he got made head of the BBC?

Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend made that point earlier in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you were not in the Chair.
I hope that the Minister will be as open with the information, as the appointments commission—the recommending body—must have been aware of all the pertinent details about the political leanings of those six people. Although none of them offends against the rules set out in the statute, it is incumbent on the Government to go further and tell the wider public exactly what, if anything, is known about the political leanings of these individuals. In that way, as the Minister said in his opening speech in yesterday's debate, there can be absolute transparency and we can be sure that not only is this an independent commission, but it is seen to be independent.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister has been at pains to reassure the House of the integrity of the selection process. In doing so, he referred with glowing pride to the fact that the permanent secretary at the Home Office, no less, had chaired the panel that took part in the selection process. However, I think that we should know somewhat more of the process prior to that.
The Minister said that some 200 people had responded to advertisements. I would like to know where the advertisements were placed. I suspect that they were all placed in the BBC house magazine, which would go some way to explaining this bizarre outcome, whereby two people out of a panel of six have come from the BBC. I shall return to that issue because the BBC has dominated the debate, and rightly so.
That gives rise to some real questions about the nature of the process whereby we have ended up with these six names. Where were the advertisements placed? Who did the initial sifting to take the 200 down to the much more limited number that this panel of alleged integrity, chaired by the permanent secretary, considered? What criteria did Ministers lay down to the permanent secretary and his colleagues on the panel as regards the shape and characteristics of the commission and the people being selected?
Purely in the cause of transparency, we should know how far gender, ethnicity and regional requirements were placed on the selection panel. The fact that we have ended up with one lady member of the commission may be a cause for celebration by the Government, but, as my hon. Friends pointed out, I suspect that many of the babes on the Labour Back Benches may be irked at the fact that, as they never tire of telling us, half of the electorate whose interests are to be safeguarded by the commission are people of gender, whereas only one of them is to be a

member of it. That is hardly proper representation. Should the Government feel proud or ashamed of the fact that there is one person of gender in the commission?
The same argument could be said to apply to ethnicity, although a person of ethnicity is a member—if we can make that assumption from the gentleman's name. Thus the Government may feel satisfied. However, when it comes to regional representation, a completely new set of questions arises. The far-flung fringes of the kingdom are over-represented on the commission. Where is middle England, in which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have some interest, and where is London, in which I have a great interest? The commission is packed with peculiar Scots and weird northerners. There is no one from the solid south or the solid midlands. The body is completely unrepresentative.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a huge Greek community in London. Is he not disappointed, therefore, that Mr. Haris Sophoclides has been excluded—a prominent Greek business man and property developer, who gave £100,000 to the Labour party?

Mr. Forth: We could spend much time listing the people who have given huge amounts to the Labour party—although you would rightly not allow it, Madam Deputy Speaker—and who have therefore ruled themselves out of consideration. In fact, it would be interesting to know how many people were ruled out at the early stages of selection on the basis that they had given large sums to the Labour party. I may touch on that subject shortly, although I want to leave the Minister time to reply to the debate and I am conscious of the clock.
Whether the commission is properly representative is questionable. Given its role in overseeing the electoral process, not to say referendums, one would look for more than a normal degree of representativeness; it fails that test.
On qualifications and expertise, the Home Office press release that described the commission's responsibilities pointed out that it would
monitor political parties' compliance with the controls on their income and expenditure
I should have thought, therefore, that we would want some accountants on the commission who were in possession of current passports, because they would have to travel to such places as Bermuda to establish whether money had flowed through that country to the Government and the Labour party before they had cleared it in terms of requirements here.
The press release also stated that one of the commission's other jobs was to
promote public awareness of electoral systems.
That is what worries me. One would have thought that the promotion of public awareness would have led one to look for people with media expertise and experience, so that that could be done evenhandedly. I should have thought that one would have looked for people from the media who could be relied on to be unbiased and impartial and to inform the public in that sort of way. Instead, we have two people from the BBC. Straight away we see a complete lack of qualifications to fulfil that important responsibility of the commission. No one is going to tell me that appointing two BBC people out of a total


membership of six will reassure anyone that the commission will have an unbiased view of electoral systems—one of its responsibilities.
Another important matter—again, taken from the Home Office press release—is that the commission will apparently comment on the intelligibility of a referendum question. That leads me to suggest that the commission's members should have an acute awareness of the role of referendums in our political process and the vital fact that the nature of the question asked in a referendum can undoubtedly often affect its outcome. Against that background, the fact that two of the commission's members have experience of criminal matters—one from the Criminal Cases Review Commission and another as an academic lawyer—may be reassuring in tracking down people who illegally give money to the Labour party, but it gives me no confidence that they are qualified to judge referendum questions.
Where are those with the qualifications to make such judgments? The press release refers to the director-general of the British Red Cross Society, who is no doubt excellent, and to the chief executive of Sheffield city council—I do not know how many referendums it has run recently—and the convenor of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, but I look in vain for a hint of someone with the qualifications to judge the intelligibility of a referendum question.
The press release tells me that one of the BBC chaps—this Mathias gentleman—was recently public affairs manager at BBC Wales. I do not know whether that qualifies him, because the referendum in Wales was a complete flop and a failure. There was a pathetic turnout and a very narrow result. The Assembly was foisted on the people of Wales as a result of a completely failed referendum. That gives me no confidence that such a background will qualify that gentleman to deal with the intelligibility of a referendum question.
All in all, I regret to say that I look in vain at that list of no doubt excellent people for any qualifications relevant to the matter in hand, whether we are talking about balance, impartiality or representativeness. Wherever I look, I fail to find evidence that those no doubt excellent people qualify. The Government should therefore reconsider the matter. We gave them the chance to do so last night. I regret to say that there was so little interest in the House when the matter was put to the test that the Government could not even muster 19 Members; out of 46 Liberal Democrats, two were here—to give them their due—but only 17 out of 417 Labour Members voted.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall sit down in a moment, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend before I do so.

Mr. Howarth: I understand that the two Liberal Democrats who went into the Lobby with the Government did so because a Government Whip told them that, unless they did so, they could not hold the Adjournment debate.

Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you rule on the relevance to the motion of the number of Members participating in Divisions last night?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is purely a factual matter, which is well reported in Hansard.

Mr. Forth: It is also why we are here tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am not at all satisfied with the list of people, but the Minister now has a chance to satisfy me. I shall sit down now so that he can reply to the debate, but he will have to work pretty hard to satisfy me that the list of people is suitable for the very important responsibilities that we have given the Electoral Commission.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hope that I will not have to work hard, because I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) holds in high regard the views of the leader of his party, who endorsed the names of the members of the commission on 2 November. Unless he entirely ignores the views of his party leader, he will spare me the job of working quite so hard to convince him.
We have had a useful debate, informed by some interesting contributions. Last night, we heard an outstanding and erudite speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who enlightened us not only on how the commissioners would operate here, but contrasted our system with his knowledge of Canadian circumstances. We all—found that very helpful.
I take comfort from the fact that the proposed nominees for appointment as electoral commissioners have broadly the support of both sides of the House, with only one or two voices of dissent. However, there has been no indication that anyone is likely to oppose the nominations in the vote. It is it important that the commissioners, both individually and collectively, command the confidence of all the main political parties. Despite the huff, puff and general blather from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) today and yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition supports the nominees and I am grateful for the indications of support that have come from him as the leader of the Conservative party. The Liberal Democrats have also signalled their support for the nominees.
Several Members raised pertinent points and I shall endeavour to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made great play of events shortly before the Christmas recess. As he is aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already indicated his regret to the Speaker for the premature release of a Home Office press notice announcing the names of the electoral commissioners-designate. No discourtesy to the House was intended. Indeed, the press notice made it clear that the appointments were entirely subject to debate and approval by the House.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Speaker's Committee that will liaise and oversee the commissioners. It was established by section 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and it will provide the appropriate mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Electoral Commission. In particular, the Speaker's Committee will be responsible for approving the commission's annual budget and five-year corporate plan.
The appointment of five of the nine members of the Committee is a matter entirely for the Speaker. He will no doubt make an announcement about this in due course. The other members are the Speaker himself, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), in his capacity as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, and a Minister responsible for local government who will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The latter appointment will be made shortly. It will be a matter for the Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee, to convene its first meeting. I understand that this is likely to be some time in February to enable the Committee to consider the Electoral Commission's draft budget for the next financial year.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the timing of the disclosure of donations to political parties. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires political parties to report donations worth more than £5,000 to the Electoral Commission on a quarterly basis. Part IV of the Act will come into force on 16 February, so the first reporting cycle will cover donations received and accepted between that date and 31 March inclusive. Parties then have 30 days to submit their donation reports to the commission.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall try to deal with the points raised in the limited time that I have left. If I have some time left later, I will give way to him.
Parties will have 30 days to submit their donation reports to the commission, so we can expect the publication of the first donation reports on, or shortly after, 30 April. In addition to the quarterly reporting cycle, parties will also have to report donations on a weekly basis during a general election period. That will ensure that information about donations is in the public domain before people cast their votes on polling day. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Mr. Hawkins: Which civil servant came up with that phrase?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks where that comment comes from. If he had read it, he would have seen that it appears in the Home Affairs Select Committee report that was the start of the process of considering the way in which parties are overseen. That was well before the Neill report appeared. Indeed, that comment was made by a former Chairman of the Committee, Sir Ivan Lawrence.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wanted the commissioners to consider a cap on donations, but I remind him that such a proposition was rejected by the Neill committee, and by this House and another place during the passage of the Bill. That does not preclude the Electoral Commission from revisiting the issue at some stage. When it does so will be a matter for the commission.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) reminded us of the provisions of section 3(4) of the Act which debars certain persons from being appointed as members of the Electoral Commission by virtue of past party political activity. He pointed out that while an electoral commissioner could not be a current member of a political party, past membership was no bar to appointment. That subsection was debated at some length during the passage of the Bill. Suffice it to say that in enacting that provision in its current form Parliament has decided that previous membership of a political party is not sufficient on its own to rule someone out of contention. To impose a 10-year bar on party membership would run the risk of excluding from consideration a great number of otherwise qualified candidates.
The appropriate test for the Neill committee, which we have adopted, is that the members of the commission should not
be people who have previously been involved in any substantial way in party politics.
That accords with paragraph 11.8 of the Neill committee report. The individuals named in the motion pass that test. The time to impose a stronger test, if the hon. Gentleman wanted one, was during the Bill's passage. However, I seem to recall that there was a great deal of debate about that, and at least some Opposition Members expressed concern at the time that we should not exclude people who have taken part in political activity from the commission, rather than saying that they should be excluded because of their party political membership.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked about people who had in the past had a party political affiliation. He suggested that once one is a member of a party, one tends to remain in that party. Well, I remind him that three Members rejected the right-wing lurch of the Conservative party and joined Labour on these Benches.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked how the number of candidates was whittled down in the selection process and whether Sir David Omand was involved in that. A standard process was used for the selection panel, with assistance from PricewaterhouseCoopers. In the first sift, the candidates were divided into three bands according to their suitability. The first banding was reviewed by all members of the panel, which then collectively decided which candidates ought to be invited for an interview. The Home Secretary was informed of the shortlist but played no part in drawing it up. Nor did he suggest which candidates should be finally selected. As far as I am aware, there was no political involvement in that process.
The hon. Member for Aldershot also asked why there is no Northern Ireland commission. The Electoral Commission is a collective decision-making body with a UK-wide remit, so there is no question of having separate commissioners—
It being one and a half after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
Question put:—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
Division deferred till Wednesday 10 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

Orders of the Day — WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48. at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
the following Standing Order be made:


(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.
(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(7) The committee small have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Toukg.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — HUMAN RIGHTS

Motion made,
That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Maclennan be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.[Mr. Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Flooding (Selby)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Mr. John Grogan: Four rivers flow through the constituency of Selby. For the most part, they are an asset to be enjoyed for leisure and recreation—places of quiet pleasure. In parts, they are still very much working rivers, but, during October and November 2000, the threat of flooding that they posed at times seemed to reach biblical proportions. The River Derwent rose to the highest level ever recorded. The River Aire rose to levels higher than those of 1946. The River Wharfe outflanked defences at Tadcaster and, at its peak, the level of the River Ouse was higher than recorded in 1625. As defences were over-topped in Selby and Barlby, 300 properties were flooded. In Tadcaster, 30 were flooded.
Local drainage problems caused flooding in a further 60 properties in Selby town and more than 200 other properties were affected in Bishopthorpe, Fulford, Elvington, Brotherton, Ryther, South Milford, Bolton Percy and many other villages besides. More than half the 88 villages in the constituency were directly affected by flooding or loss of electricity. Virtually all were affected by loss of road and rail links.
The night-time images of Chinook helicopters carrying heavy loads of sandbags taking off from a car park in Selby so that soldiers could toil away until dawn to reinforce the banks at Barlby will live not just in the local, but in the national consciousness for a long while. At one stage, the river was 1 ft above the defences at Barlby, but the sandbags held. If they had been breached, 7,500 properties in Barlby and Selby would have been flooded. I do not doubt that many people would have lost their lives. Many businesses would never have re-emerged intact after the deluge.
Many flood victims in the area endured a miserable Christmas, but we still have much to be grateful for: the local council, the Environment Agency, the police, the Army, the drainage boards, as well as all the volunteers who offered shelter and food and filled sandbags. Things could have been so much worse. Their fortitude, endurance, Yorkshire grit and determination not to be beaten by the elements were summed up by the British Waterways staff I met at Selby lock. Fred Firth and Terry Downes, the lock keepers, and their supervisor, Martin Walter, worked 36-hour shifts in a desperate effort to keep the pumps working. Like many heroes and heroines of the Selby floods, they were very self-effacing, but their actions spoke for themselves.
Lessons have already been learned. Together with the agencies involved, I hosted a full day of hearings in Selby town hall in December and representatives of more than 20 communities attended. The need to improve communications between local communities and the central Silver command was often stressed as a priority. In villages such as Cawood, Kelfield and Kellington, massive voluntary efforts to keep the rivers at bay were co-ordinated by the local parish councils. North Yorkshire county council has agreed to examine how its emergency plans and procedures can take greater account of that grassroots element of our democracy.
In the aftermath of the floods, many of the communities most affected became politicised and formed action groups. Ros Amor, John Amor and Sharon Egan have provided outstanding leadership to the Barlby residents action group, which is a model of its kind. The local community is also grateful to major employers such as Hazelwood's and BOCM for sticking with the area. Many businesses such as RJB Mining worked tirelessly and closely with Yorkshire Electricity to restore the area's power, which was lost for some days.
A crisis of any kind brings with it difficult choices. It changes perceptions of what had seemed ordinary problems so that suddenly they seem overwhelming. It is essential at such times to remain calm and measured, but to act decisively. I shall discuss briefly a number of such problems—the funding of flood defences, the bills that floods leave behind them, the impact of mining in Selby, the problems of subsidence, particularly for agriculture, and insurance issues.
This Thursday morning, the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee meets at York racecourse. The proposal before it is to increase the levy on local authorities by 63 per cent. That would mean a local authority contribution of almost £27 million in the next financial year, compared to about £17 million in the current financial year. For North Yorkshire the increase would be from £2.3 million to £3.7 million. That is £1.4 million out of a total budget for North Yorkshire of more than £400 million. Contrary to some local speculation, we are speaking of a 63 per cent. increase in the levy on the councils, not on the council tax itself.
The prize is significant—an enhanced programme of capital works on improved flood defences would follow the completion of a survey of all the major rivers in the county, which will be finished in April this year. Catchment strategy studies are focusing not only on providing flood barriers in towns and villages downstream, such as in Selby and Barlby, but on improving the retention of water in the drainage systems in the hills.
The new capital programme next year would be £23 million under this budget, instead of the originally planned £15 million. Selby and Barlby could look forward to a £1.5 million enhancement of their defences in the next financial year, in addition to the emergency repair works, costing £250,000, which commenced this week.
The prize is so important that it is essential that it not be threatened by a funding dispute between local and central Government. Last Friday, the west midlands flood defence committee put on hold for one year a budget that would have meant a levy increase of about 10 per cent. Many important flood defence schemes in areas such as Shrewsbury, Cheltenham and Melton Mowbray are now in doubt. I very much hope that the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee does not adopt a similar strategy.
The funding of flood defences must he a partnership between local and national Government. The paper to be presented to the regional flood defence committee on Thursday states that the profile of asset condition—that is, the flood defences—in the Yorkshire region is not acceptable. The assets in the region are in much worse condition than anywhere else in the country.
In Yorkshire, only 15 per cent. of flood defences are in good or very good condition, compared with more than 80 per cent. in Lancashire and the north-west. It will take


at least five years to bring our flood defences in the region back up to the national average. Our flood defences have been neglected over recent decades. In some years, council representatives on the flood defence committee decided not to increase the levy in line with the increase in the standard spending assessment floods element granted by central Government.
A Leeds city councillor, Liz Nash, who was on the flood defence committee until last May, was recently reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post as saying:
Some local councils want to top skim this money to spend on other priorities. Councils have been strapped for cash for years and the temptation to use this money, which should be passed on for flood prevention, is very great.
She continued:
It gives me no satisfaction to say that until I left that committee in May I always argued for the full amount to be passed on, particularly bearing in mind the flooding Leeds suffers.
That did not happen and it was a gamble which representatives from other councils played and which did not come off.
As a result, there is now a bill to pay. Central Government cannot be expected to pick up the whole tab. On that basis, there would be little point in a Yorkshire regional flood defence committee. Local discretion must bring with it some local responsibility. Equally, central Government should meet their commitment to pick up the bill for all the emergency costs associated with the recent flooding, as Professor Roy Ward, chairman of the regional flood defence committee, requested.
I understand that a bid has been submitted to Government by the Environment Agency for additional emergency funding to cover the emergency response and urgent repair works in the wake of the floods. It is essential that the Government respond quickly to that request. That accounts for some of the 63 per cent. increase to be asked of local councils on Thursday in Yorkshire, but at least half the increase is for increased capital expenditure on flood defences. That will be funded at the increased rate of 65 per cent. by central Government.
Moreover, if the local authority levy is increased this year, there is every expectation that it will be matched by an increase in the standard spending assessment for flood defences next year. That is essentially a cash flow problem for local councils. It is essential that, on Thursday, the Yorkshire flood defence committee should accept in full the proposed capital programme. Both local and central Government then have a responsibility to reach a partnership agreement on the funding.
Barlby county primary school is one of four in the county which are part of a private finance initiative bid to build new schools. The final contracts with the developer, Accord, were due to be signed just as the rains started. The school's new site was badly flooded. Showing considerable alacrity, the county council and the developer, Accord, have now submitted a new scheme with Barlby school, set to be rebuilt on its existing site and on an adjacent piece of land. That has changed the financing package somewhat. Later today, I shall meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith),

to seek her approval for the new package. The futures of four schools in Yorkshire, not just the one in Barlby, depend on the agreement.
Since the floods, there have been campaigns in two villages to stop the prospect of mining under the villages because of fears of subsidence increasing the flood risk. I have held discussions regarding Naburn village with RJB Mining and I expect an announcement on its precise plans later this month.
As regards Kelfield, it is clear that during the next three years RJB Mining will mine under the village. The local Conservative party, emboldened by a visit from Edward McMillan-Scott, leader of the Conservative party in the European Parliament, has jumped on that bandwagon and shown its support, through Mr. McMillan-Scott, for revoking planning permission for RJB Mining to mine under Kelfield. Quite how it intends to bring that about has not been made clear. But there are dangers in jumping on bandwagons. If RJB Mining does not mine under Kelfield, there will be no further coal to mine from Wistow mine. If Wistow shuts, the whole Selby complex will close within weeks, such are the huge fixed costs of operating Gascoigne Wood, where all the coal comes to the surface. More than 3,000 jobs and many jobs in the Selby area dependent on mining would be lost within weeks.
Moreover, there is no need for the people of Kelfield to panic. The village can be perfectly adequately defended by improved flood defences. One need only consider the nearby villages of Escrick and Stillingfleet, both of which have been extensively mined under in recent years. Without the pumps and flood banks paid for by the National Coal Board, both those villages would have been flooded last November.
RJB Mining has a legal responsibility to pay for flood defences at Kelfield. The Environment Agency needs to adopt a robust attitude with RJB Mining to ensure that it lives up to its responsibilities. The two bodies need to co-ordinate their plans, and I intend to make sure that they do so. In the old days, the National Rivers Authority and the National Coal Board both regarded themselves as public sector bodies, working for the public good. Now, RJB Mining, as a private company, quite properly has responsibilities to its shareholders and an eye for the bottom line. But if anything, that enhances the Environment Agency's role as an agency solely concerned with the public interest.
To give one brief example, many farms and roads in the area were flooded between Deighton and Naburn, which has been extensively mined, with subsidence of about 1 m. The flooding was caused by water backing up in Wood dyke, in the area which had been lowered. Last year, a £750,000 scheme was drawn up by the Environment Agency for an earth embankment and a pump to be placed adjacent to the dyke where it enters the river alongside the B1222. That would have prevented flooding of properties such as Park farm at Deighton, which suffered more than £20,000-worth of damage, and Moreby lodge, near Naburn. For some reason, the scheme was never implemented. There is a suspicion locally that sometimes the Environment Agency can be a bit of a soft touch in dealing with RJB Mining. It needs to show by its actions in the coming months that that is far from true.
Equally, the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, as it pertains to flooding, may need to be tested in a Lands Tribunal. There is little doubt that the aforementioned Park farm at Deighton, run by Mr. and Mrs. Whitely, would not have flooded prior to mining. Yet whether flood damage caused as a direct result of subsidence falls under the terms of the 1991 Act remains ambiguous.
That brings me finally to the wider problems of farmers and householders who have suffered as a result of the floods. One national newspaper described the flood waters around Selby at one point as being larger than Lake Windermere. Clearly, in such circumstances, Selby's farming community has suffered great losses. In some cases, people have been dealing with uninsurable losses.
The local secretary of the National Farmers Union wrote to me after the floods with details of some of the problems faced by farmers. Jimmy Lund was one of the first local farmers to suffer, and one of the most seriously affected. He had to evacuate all his stock, produce and family from his 100-acre farm, which was under water for nearly a month. Another farmer, Ces Elcock, at one time had only about 10 per cent. of his 300-odd acres that was not flooded. The worst of the losses that he suffered was of some 40 acres of sugar beet.
I know that local farmers appreciate the changes that have been made to arable area payments for flooded land. The derogation that my hon. Friend the Minister has managed to negotiate with Europe is very helpful, and local farmers and the NFU are looking forward to the results of further applications that have been made to Europe for modifications to the scheme.
I think that some local farmers will, choose to try and plant crops in the spring, rather than opt for set-aside, for which I understand that they would not receive payments until August 2002. However, anything that can be done to assist farmers, some of whose businesses have been devastated, would be most welcome.
Equally, householders in the Barlby residents action group are carefully monitoring problems of reinsurance. Many people are dreading a possible hike in their premiums when their policies fall due for renewal. Next week, I am to meet the Association of British Insurers with the action group.
Above all, we must create a sense of confidence and renewed hope for the future in the area. The problems of reinsurance will be mitigated considerably if the Yorkshire floods defence committee backs the enhanced capital programme at its meeting on Thursday.
In summary, our response to the great floods of Selby in the year 2000 must retain a sense of balance and proportion. We must balance the responsibilities of local government and central Government, and also the need to extract the rich resource of coal from under our area with the need to protect our farms and villages for future generations. Those people will live their lives when both coal and the floods of 2000 will be a distant memory in Selby.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on his knowledgeable and very comprehensive speech, in which he described the dreadful

tragedy faced by many of his constituents. I also want to pay a personal tribute to his commitment: I visited Selby a number of times when the floods were at their peak, and my hon. Friend was in the Silver control centre there on my every visit.
I know, too, that my hon. Friend spent many hours talking to local emergency services, the Environment Agency, British Waterways and the Army. All those organisations did a great job in the area, and often worked around the clock to try to strengthen the defences around Selby. There is no doubt that, without that work, those defences would have given way in places, and many more houses would have been affected. I also express my sympathy for all my hon. Friend's constituents who have been affected.
As my hon. Friend noted, the situation with the floods was an extreme. In some places, they were the worst for hundreds of years, and in others they were the worst on record. The huge effort that was made meant that the flood defences in the Selby area held back the water beyond their designed capacity. I am glad that that work was successful. As a matter of interest, one of the Army regiments that I met at the control centre in Selby was the Royal Artillery Regiment from Kirton-in-Lindsey in my constituency. I was very pleased to see those soldiers there, and to witness the sterling work that they had done.
I was also very interested in my hon. Friend's comments about holding a full day of hearings for local people. That is a good idea. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is anxious that we do not forget about the people who have been affected in flood-hit areas, although the floods are no longer in the national media. Consequently, he has set up a Cabinet taskforce group, which he has asked me to chair. We have considered a range of issues, including all those that my hon. Friend raised in the debate.
We have been considering examples of good practice in flood-hit areas and the way in which people have learned some of the lessons of the floods. We can thus try to improve the support that people get and ascertain what might need to be done to strengthen defences, construct new defences or improve reaction times or organisation.
I understand my hon. Friend's support for local companies. I spoke to the managing director of Hazelwood Foods, which was badly affected. We have done what we can, especially through the Government office in the area, to provide support to local companies and local industry.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the cost of flood defences. That is an important consideration. The Government have announced that we are making an additional £51 million available for new flood defences on top of what was already a rising spend on providing flood defences nationally.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the exceptional costs that the Environment Agency has incurred and the enormous damage that has been done to existing defences throughout the country, especially in Yorkshire. As he rightly stated, approximately £250,000 has already been spent in the Selby area on essential repairs to the flood defences. He was right to say that we have been discussing those costs with the Environment Agency. We are currently evaluating the bid that has been made in relation to the costs and discussing it in Government.
My hon. Friend knows that the Government have improved and enhanced the Bellwin scheme, which deals with the exceptional costs that local authorities incur in the aftermath of floods: the clean-up costs, the cost of overtime and of equipment that may have to be brought in. Those extra costs may run into many millions of pounds. However, from a central Government perspective, we accept that we have responsibilities. We will not duck our responsibility for supporting local councils and, through them, local people.
As my hon. Friend said, however, regional flood defence committees must play their part in raising the finances for flood defences. I strongly support the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee on the levy that it has requested to improve flood defences in the area. Regional flood defence committees have not always increased the levy in line with the standard spending assessment, which central Government provide. For the past three years, the SSA has been above inflation. My hon. Friend is right to say that levy increases are not the same as a council tax increase. Sometimes the levy increases sound high, but the levy might be a small sum that is being raised locally.
I also confirm that any increase in levy will be accompanied by an increase in the SSA the following year. As my hon. Friend knows, local people should remember that the more money raised through the levy, the more schemes can be financed and the more capital grant will go from central Government to Selby and Yorkshire to uprate flood defences.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about school funding. I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment will consider it sympathetically. I also understand his point about mining, and I strongly agree with his comments about the unfortunate example of yet another bandwagon that the Conservative party seems to have jumped on. This time it is an underground bandwagon. However, I hope that the people of Selby will bear it in mind that, for the sake of a few populist comments, the Conservative party seems to be putting 3,000 jobs at risk in my hon. Friend's constituency. That would also affect all the associated industries.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that defences could be designed to deal effectively with subsidence. Subsidence does not necessarily mean that communities will be put at risk. He was also right to say that companies such as RJB Mining have responsibilities, in terms of the financial commitments that they must make in connection with dealing with subsidence, and the fact that defences may have to be improved.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about the Environment Agency. I am sure that the agency takes this seriously, but, although it is responsible for ensuring that RJB Mining delivers on its legal and financial commitments, I will raise the issue with it in order to satisfy myself that it is being dealt with satisfactorily.
My hon. Friend mentioned farming. As he said, I have already announced flexibility on set-aside, which will give some support to farmers in his area. Other regulations on subsidies are called into question; difficulties are involved in cropping, and in getting machinery on to waterlogged ground. We are talking to the European Commission about that, and seeking flexibility in the application of the regulations to give maximum support to farmers in flood-hit areas. The National Farmers Union has presented my right hon. Friend the Minister with a dossier on flood damage, which is currently being examined.
Selby was one of the areas worst affected by the floods. It was given national prominence at the time, and was visited by a number of Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. He went to observe the actions of the military, who are doing a great job. I went there, too, given my responsibility for flood defence, and I understand that members of the royal family went to express their sympathy.
What we must do now is consider the aftermath. We must think about what needs to be done about defences. We must take seriously my hon. Friend's point about the condition of many of those defences, and the fact that money may well have to be spent to bring them to a satisfactory standard.
The Government accept that more expenditure will be required. We will make extra resources available, but this must be a partnership effort, involving the regional flood defence committees. Part of the money will be raised locally for the benefit of local people, as has always been the case, but we will provide aid through capital grants. We will also increase the grant for river flood defence systems by 20 per cent., which will help my hon. Friend's constituents.
I shall continue to take a close interest in all issues involved in the aftermath of the floods, including issues of insurance. If my hon. Friend is worried about insurance companies, or suspects that there are failings in the way in which his constituents are dealt with—now and in the future—when it comes to reinsurance, I shall be only too pleased to hear about it. I know that he will be meeting the Association of British Insurers. I have already had a meeting with its chief executive, but I should be delighted to take up any further issues relating to my hon. Friend's constituents, and if the Government can give any further assistance I would ask those concerned to write in—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nine minutes past Four o'clock.